Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!
Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.
Post History
D'varim 25:6 says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations: Rashi says the eldest brother of the deceased should do yi...
Answer
#4: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2021-01-03T19:22:32Z (over 3 years ago)
- _D'varim_ 25:6 says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:
- _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha, or at least that the children's _not_ counting for the new husband is not accepted in halacha.
- _D'varim_ 25:6 says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:
- - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (i.e., marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).
- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- - _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage [or maybe he means all its children] will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it __doesn't__ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha, or at least that the children's _not_ counting for the new husband is not accepted in halacha.
#3: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2021-01-03T03:47:03Z (over 3 years ago)
Although you quote from Wikipedia that "The offspring of the levirate union would be seen as a perpetuation of the deceased brother's name", that, though valid, does not seem to be accepted in halacha.The verse (_D'varim_ 25:6) says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:- - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).
- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- - _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha, or at least that the children's _not_ counting for the new husband is not accepted in halacha.
- _D'varim_ 25:6 says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:
- - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).
- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- - _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha, or at least that the children's _not_ counting for the new husband is not accepted in halacha.
#2: Post edited
by
msh210
·
2021-01-03T03:46:12Z (over 3 years ago)
- Although you quote from Wikipedia that "The offspring of the levirate union would be seen as a perpetuation of the deceased brother's name", that, though valid, does not seem to be accepted in halacha.
- The verse (_D'varim_ 25:6) says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:
- - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).
- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha.
- Although you quote from Wikipedia that "The offspring of the levirate union would be seen as a perpetuation of the deceased brother's name", that, though valid, does not seem to be accepted in halacha.
- The verse (_D'varim_ 25:6) says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations:
- - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1).
- - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar.
- - _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha, or at least that the children's _not_ counting for the new husband is not accepted in halacha.
#1: Initial revision
by
msh210
·
2021-01-03T03:44:04Z (over 3 years ago)
Although you quote from Wikipedia that "The offspring of the levirate union would be seen as a perpetuation of the deceased brother's name", that, though valid, does not seem to be accepted in halacha. The verse (_D'varim_ 25:6) says "the firstborn that she'll give birth to, he will stand on his dead brother's name". There are a few interpretations: - _Rashi_ says the eldest brother of the deceased should do _yibum_ (viz, marry the widow), provided she can give birth, and he then inherits his brother's share in their father's estate. This interpretation is based on the _Bavli_ and is accepted in halacha (_Yore Dea_ 161:4, 163:1). - _Ramban_ says this is an assurance [seemingly that the firstborn will in some sense stand in his father's stead]. _Rabenu Bachya (ben Asher)_ seems to say something similar. - _S'forno_ indeed says that the firstborn of the new marriage will "count for God as the deceased's fulfillment of the command to multiply". But I cannot find this — and certainly not that it _doesn't_ count for the new husband — in _Shulchan Aruch_, _Bes Sh'muel_, _Chelkas M'chokek_, or _Aruch Hashulchan_ 1, 156, or 162–164, or in _Minchas Chinuch_ 1 or 598, so I strongly suspect it's not accepted in halacha.