Parshas Mishpatim - wives and children, and yichus
מיכאל ריטש
Relationship to wife, yichus of the child
Ramban on pilegesh (concubine) (B’reishis 25(6)): “Perhaps even B’nei Noach when they marry normal wives through cohabitation, they used to give them a document promising her a dowry gift. But when they wanted the woman to be a pilegesh, so that they could send them away at will and that the children would not inherit them, they would not write such a document.”
The Ramban links the relationship between husband and wife - and his relationship to the children. (See the sugyos in Masaches Kesubos 52b about כתובת בנין דכרין.)
דברים כא(טו) כי־תהיין לאיש שתי נשים האחת אהובה והאחת שנואה וילדו־לו כו‘ והיה הבן הבכר לשניאה. כו‘ (טז) לא יוכל לבכר את־בן־האהובה על־פני בן־השנואה הבכר. כו‘
D’varim 21(15): “If a man has two wives, one beloved and one hated, and the first-born son is to the hated wife... He cannot promote the son of the beloved wife over the son of the hated wife...”
He wants to make the son of the beloved wife his first-born, because of his love for her - and to distance the son of the wife he also wants to distance.
We find a similar idea concerning halachic distancing.
Kiddushin 68b: “כי תהיין לאיש כו‘ וילדו לו - whenever we say כי תהיין (they are allowed to marry), we say וילדו לו (the children are his), and whenever we do not say כי תהיין, we do not say וילדו לו.”
The mishnah there, 66b:
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‘ עכ“ל.
(parentheses mine) “Any time kiddushin is allowed without an aveirah (such as a cohen to a bas Yisroel), the child has the yichus of the father (completely)... Any time kiddushin works but there is an aveirah (such as a mamzeres), the child goes after the flaw (will share in lower yichus, even from the mother). Any time kiddushin between them is impossible, but she is still capable of kiddushin with someone else (such as forbidden relatives), the child is a mamzer (but still is considered his child). Anytime she cannot do kiddushin with anyone (like a non-Jewess or a female slave), the child is completely like her (and is not considered the father’s son at all).
As seen in this week’s parsha:
שמות כא(ד) אם־אדניו יתן־לו אשה וילדה־לו בנים או בנות האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה כו'
Shmos 21(4): “If his master gives him a (slave) wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children are slaves to the master...”
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‘
“What do we do with the verse בת אשת אביך (daughter of your father’s wife, sister)? We need it to forbid the daughter of any woman who is capable of having kiddushin with one’s father, but to exclude one’s sister from a female slave or non-Jewess... But why don’t we exclude one’s sister from a woman who just isn’t married to the father?... Why don’t we exclude a woman who is forbidden to marry the father from a ל"ת (such as a mamzeres)?... Why don’t we exclude a woman who is completely incapable of marrying the father, from a ל"ת that carries כרת?...”
See how the gemara works its way down the list, starting from a lesser distancing (they aren’t married), then more and more halachic distancing. Finally it arrives at the correct place where the sister is no longer called the “daughter of the wife of his father”. Throughout the process, the verse always means the same thing: a sister via a relationship between his father and the mother.
נדרים כ: ז“ל ברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי, אמר רבי לוי אלו בני תשע מדות כו‘ בני אימה, בני אנוסה, בני שנואה, בני נידוי כו‘. וכולם ריחוקים בין אדם לאשתו בשעת מעשה, והבנים באים לידי מקצת ממזרות, כמו שאמר הגמרא התם בריש עמוד.
דברים כד(א) אם־לא תמצא־חן בעיניו, כי־מצא בה ערות דבר
D’varim 24(1), the rules of geirushin: “If she doesn’t find favor in his eyes, since he has found in her ערות דבר.” See Gittin 90a. We don’t poskin like Beis Shammai, that divorce is only permitted if there is a halachic prohibition; they may divorce even if she “no longer finds favor in his eyes”. The verse is calling this ערות דבר as well. Full-fledged ערוה prevents kiddushin. But here the Torah is calling this (some level of) ערוה, some kind of barrier between them.
(וע“ע כג(טו) כי ה‘ אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך כו‘ ולא־יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך. פי‘, דבר שמעכב שכינת ה‘ מהתהלך בקרבם.)
What’s the explanation?
We have found a number of sources in the verses and the gemara for this idea: the relationship between father and child is linked, dependent, on the relationship between the father and the mother. But what is the idea? A simple place to start would be the Ramban on pilegesh I mentioned above. The mother is always related to the child. But the father’s relationship is only via the mother. If he is distanced from her, he is distanced from the children as well.
But perhaps I can flesh it out a little more and suggest the following: The חומר, substance, of the child always comes from the mother who formed him. The father contributes the כח, the צורה - energy, structure. (See the Ramban on Vayikra 12(2) אשה כי תזריע, for a discussion of this from the ancient sages.)
The mother becomes a kli to the father, and from that vessel the child is formed in the father’s image, according to the צורה he provides. Therefore, to the extent that the mother can be close to the father, to that extent can she become a proper kli on his behalf: the child will be formed in his image. When there is a barrier between them, she cannot become such a kli, and the child will not be as much in his image.
בראשית ב(כד) ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד (פירש"י לבשר אחד. הולד נוצר על ידי שניהם, ושם נעשה בשרם אחד)
B’reishis 2(24): “He shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” (see Rashi)
Certainly the verse is not dealing with two different subjects. Rather, Rashi means to say that there is a temporary connection between husband and wife, and a permanent one when there is a child. (This would be the idea that a ממזר is called מעוות לא יוכל לתקון (Yevamos 22b) - a permanent embodyment of the aveirah.)
The Ramban asks on Rashi there: the verse is clearly talking about a particular feature of humanity, not animals, as it says, “as she was taken from a man. Therefore... and cleave to his wife...” However can לבשר אחד refer to the child: don’t animals also have children?
But according to what I’ve been saying, we should be able to answer this. The relationship between father and son is dependent on that between husband and wife. Since animals never have that kind of marital relationship, the animal father will never have a relationship with the child either (אין יחס פר בן בקר אב לבנו, כדאיתא בפ“ד דיבמות). They can never be “one flesh”; the father will never be found in the child; that only happens with humanity.
(שוב ראיתי רש“י על תהלים כז(י) כי־אבי ואמי עזבוני 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.)
Other applications
Bris milah:
(פירש“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.
Shmiras Shabbos and building the Mishkan:
Creating a child is called בנין בית, building a house (Yevamos from D’varim 25(9)) But just as a woman becomes a kli to her husband in forming his son from her body, so too was Israel commanded to build a house for Hashem from their substance, נדיבות לבם וחכמת לבם, their generosity and skill - to give Hashem a place for his shekhina to dwell. As it is written, ושכנתי בתוכם.
But as is well known, keeping Shabbos is tightly linked with making the Mishkan. When Hashem came to command Israel to build a house in his name, he commanded them to keep Shabbos and not do melacha in making the Mishkan. For when Hashem made the world and shaped it, he did his melacha in the six weekdays and rested on the seventh. When Israel is to become a vessel, his vessel, to do melacha in his way and in his name, they must be shomrei Shabbos as well. Only then can their work be called after his name. If Israel would not be his kli, even if they would build a house, it wouldn’t be his house - and the shechina could not have dwelled in it.