Pisqa’ 215¹¹

1. “Should a man have two wives” (Dt. 21:15)— wives implies that the marriages are legitimate. Excluded are marriages to a slave-girl or a gentile, for such marriages are not legitimate. Does this mean that we exclude [the marriages of] these two? Then let us also exclude —from the category of wife— the childless widow of a deceased brother,¹². She must marry her brother-in-law unless he releases her to marry another man. See Dt. 25:5-11, Pisqa’ 291. and a betrothed woman [as yet unmarried, but who requires a document of divorce]? The Teaching states: “Two wives” (Dt. 21:15)— [both marriages must be in good standing in order to fall under the present rule of inheritance].

footnotes: ¹¹ H:225-226;JN2:116-118. ¹² Heb; yevamah

R. Ishmael says: The verse describes the way things are. It explains that, in the end, [the man taking a second wife] will hate her and love another!

2. “And they bear him children” (Dt. 21:15)— The [birth-dates] will resolve any doubts about a nine-month child of the first marriage or a seven-month child of the second marriage.

I might infer only that the verse speaks of a child born from the birth canal. On what basis do I know about a child born from its mother’s side? The Teaching states: “And they bear him children” (Dt. 21:15)— by any kind of birth.

Another word:¹³ 215.1-2 is unevenly represented in textual witnesses. See F:247, n.12. “Should a man have two wives” (Dt. 21:15). I might infer only that this rule applies when there are only two wives. How do I know that it applies as well to more? The Teaching states: “Wives” (Dt. 21:15)— [at least two].

footnotes: ¹³ The material from Pisqa’

I might infer only that this rule applies when there are many wives, but some of them are favored, and some of them are rejected. How do I know that it applies as well when all of them are favored or when all of them are rejected? The Teaching states: “One is favored” and “The favored one” (Dt. 21:15); “One is rejected” and “The rejected one” (Dt. 21:15)— this redundancy permits expansion of the rule [to include many wives in varying degrees of favor].

But I still might infer only that this rule applies when there are many wives all of whom are favored, or all of whom are rejected. How do I know that it applies as well even when there are two wives? The Teaching states: two wives (Dt. 21:15).

But I still might infer only that this rule applies when there are two wives, one of whom is favored and one of whom is rejected? And how do I know that it applies as well even if there is only one wife and she is favored, or there is only one wife and she is rejected? The Teaching states: Favored and the favored (Dt. 21:15), rejected and the rejected— the redundancy of the verse permits expansion of the rule [to include many wives in various degrees of favor].

3. Which is the favored? One who is favored in the eyes of the All-Present [for her virtues]. And the rejected? One who is rejected in the eyes of The All-Present [for her vices]. Is it possible to say that [at issue is the love of the All-Present]? I might infer only that [at issue is] a woman who has been raped or one who has been seduced, since a husband’s way with her is different than it is with other women. On what basis do I know that [marriages between] a widow and a High Priest, or between a divorcee or a Shoe-loosener¹⁴. This is a widow whose levir has refused to marry her. She must perform the “Shoe-loosening rite” (khalitzah) before re-marrying. See Pisqa’ 288-291 and a common Priest are legitimate? The Teaching states: “Favored”¹⁵ and with the direct article, ha’ahuvah; literally, “beloved.” and “the favored” (Dt. 21:15); “Rejected”¹⁶ and with the direct article, hasenu’ah; literally, “hated.” and “the rejected”— this redundancy permits expansion of the rule [to include the wives of Priests who should not have married into priestly families].

footnotes: ¹⁴ Heb: khalutzah ¹⁵ Heb: ‘ahuvah ¹⁶ Heb: senu’ah

4. Now, should I include proscribed marriages between close relatives, [for which the Torah itself provides no penalty,] but not include marriages between close relatives for which the penalty is heavenly excision? The Teaching states: “Rejected” and “the rejected” (Dt. 21:15)— Does this redundancy permit expansion of the rule to include marriages between close relatives for which the penalty is heavenly excision, but not include marriages between close relatives for which the penalty is judicial execution? The Teaching states: “Rejected” and “the rejected” (Dt. 21:15)— this redundancy permits expansion of the rule [to include all marriages that are illegitimate].

Is it possible to say, then, that this rule applies even to a slave-girl, and even to a gentile? The Teaching states: “Should a man have two wives” (Dt. 21:15)— this refers to a man who is legitimately married to the women. But it excludes these two, [namely, the slave-girl and the gentile,] for their marriages are not legitimate.

5. “And they bear him children” (Dt. 21:15)— the children must be his, thereby excluding the children of these two, who [under the rules of inheritance] are not considered his.

Another word: **“And they bear him children”**¹⁷ can mean “male children” or children of either sex. (Dt. 21:15)— sons are covered by this Teaching, but daughters¹⁸. are not covered by this Teaching. Yet we find that daughters may claim their inheritance in place of their dead brothers, to take an equal share [with relatives yet living] ¹⁹ (Nu. 27:1-12). Is it possible to say that the right of the First-born son applies to them? The Teaching states: “And they bear him children” (Dt. 21:15)— sons are covered by this Teaching, but daughters are not covered by this Teaching.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Heb: banim, ¹⁸ Heb: banot ¹⁹ Cf. M. BB. 8:2.

“Then, the son” (Dt. 21:15)— but not a child of undetermined sex,²⁰ or one with male and female sexual organs²¹.

footnotes: ²⁰ Heb: tumtum. ²¹ Heb: androgynos.

“Born first” (Dt. 21:15)— but not one [whose birth-order] is in doubt.

“Is assigned to the rejected wife” (Dt. 21:15)— the verse announces to you that the First-born son, [who is your principal heir,] belongs to the rejected wife!