INSIGHT 5767 - #35 THE STATUS OF CHILD
Devarim 21:15-17 presents the law
that a father -- married to two women, one beloved and
one not1-- may not override his first-born
son’s right to an additional portion of inheritance,
even though this son is born of the wife not, or less,
beloved. While, indeed, the simple reading of this verse
does seem to be referring to the emotions of the father
toward his two wives,2T.B. Yevamot 23a
presents a most interesting alternate explanation. The gemara
understands this description as referring to God’s
perception of the two women and thus questions the very
idea that there exist different feelings, emanating from
the Divine,3toward these two women. The gemara
concludes that the case must be referring to marriages
that are halachically acceptable and those that
are not – and that the verse is informing us that
even if the first born son is of a halachically
unacceptable union, i.e. born to the woman that the
father should not have been married to in the first
place, the son’s rights are still to be protected.4
As Rashi explains, why would we even expect the
emotions of the father to change the first born’s
right, according to Halacha, of an additional
inheritance portion? The fact that the Torah would
actually address the issue would seem to imply that there
was a need to make this statement. The gemara,
therefore, seems to be inferring that one could
understand an argument to change the first born
son’s rights due to the legal status of his
parent’s union – but why would we even think
that the emotions of the father toward his wives could
change these rights?
Of course, the fact that these emotions could
affect the desire of the father to give more to the son
of the wife he loves more that the others, is not in
dispute. The case of Yaakov Avinu clearly proves
the truth of this possibility as Yaakov, indeed, had
stronger emotions toward the sons of Rachel Imeinu
than his other sons. Most significantly, Bereishit
29:30,31 use the exact same language, used in these
verses in Devarim, to describe the relationship of Yaakov
toward Rachel and Leah. According to Rashi, the gemara’s
question is not why would we think a father is so
motivated but, rather, why would we think that the
father’s emotions could change the law, thereby
demanding the further statement not to take away the
first born’s extra portion even though he is born to
the less beloved. The gemara’s response is
that there is no proper reason to have thought this, thus
the need to explain the verse in a different manner.
Those who maintain the simple reading of the verse,
though, must have seen a reason to have maintained this.
How we read these verses in Devarim thus yield a
most interesting disagreement in our perspectives of
marriage. The final conclusion is clear; in this matter,
we should not change the rights of the children based
upon the relationship between husband and wife. The
question emerges, though, on whether we could have
properly thought otherwise. If we could have thought
otherwise, and indeed the personal emotions between
husband and wife do have value in the structure of family
– albeit in this case, this value is not to be
exercised – we are left with a vision of family that
could be highly influenced by this personal relationship.
If, as this gemara seems to be informing us, we
could not have really thought otherwise, we are left with
a vision of family that is not necessarily affected by
this personal relationship. Phrased in a different
manner, is the prime definition of parents to be their
status as husband and wife – i.e. their personal
relationship – or their status as father and mother
– i.e. their relationship with their children?
Yaakov’s behaviour toward his sons would seem
to support the first assertion. The damage that occurred
within the family due to this behaviour5 would
seem to support the latter. The direction in Devarim
21:15-17 clearly informs us that that we, indeed, must
approach the first assertion with caution but is it still
to have value? There is a dispute amongst the
commentators as to which wife of Yaakov is deemed to have
precedence. Is it Rachel, his beloved or is it Leah, the
mother of the majority of his children, including Yehuda?
What is perhaps most interesting in this debate is how
the differing commentators present their views of wife
and mother. Leah, who clearly has greater weight as the
mother of the family, is, thereby, seen, by the
commentators who stress this view, as, also, the prime
wife of Yaakov. Rachel, who clearly has greater weight as
the love choice of Yaakov, is, thereby, seen, by the
commentators who stress this view, as also the unique
mother of all klal Yisrael. We, often, easily
connect the roles of wife and mother but, in fact, these
two roles are not easily connected. One represents a
relationship of a specific nature between two
individuals. The other represents a relationship within
the group structure of family. The nature of life
connects these two but the question is how. Is it the
roles of mother and father that are to dominate and set
the tone, or is it roles of husband and wife that are to
do so?
It is within this context that the verses in
Devarim have specific significance. To those who simply
see the status of father and mother as the essential
definition, without question, the purpose of these verses
must be elsewhere. To those who also see value in the
status of husband and wife – and are continuously
bothered by the challenge of maintaining a reality of
both roles – the personal and the familial –
within the family unit, this verse offers further
direction in reaching this goal. One loves one’s
child because he/she is one’s child. One may also
love one’s child because he/she is the product of a
special union between a man and woman bonded by a unique
love. When that occurs, it indeed strengthens the bond
between parent and child. Yet, when it does not, the
child is still your child and that bond must stand alone,
equal in every one of your children. That is the message
of these verses in Devarim. Even if one believes that
there is a special value in the personal relationship
between husband and wife – and that special value
can, and should, affect the family unit6
– in another way, it should not. Your child is your
child regardless of how this came to be -- and there is
equality in the status of your child. This, perhaps in a
different way, is also the lesson of the gemara in
Yevamot. Footnotes 1 The actual language of the
verse uses the word ‘hated’ however, as many
commentators point out, this can simply refer to one less
loved. 2. And many commentators
maintain this approach. 3. The gemara actually
seems to be questioning the very idea of these emotions
in connection to God. This topic, though, is beyond the
parameters of this Insight. 4. The gemara actually
uses this verse to indicate that, in cases of simple
prohibitions to have relations, an act of marriage still
has the effect of creating a legal union. This is to be
distinguished from cases of incest or adultery, where an
act of marriage has no standing. 5. See, for example, T.B.
Shabbat 10b. 6. Albeit with its own
difficulties © Nishma, 2007 Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA