(Devarim 21:15) "If there be to a man two wives": Scripture speaks of women in whom there is "being" (i.e., being as a wife) — to exclude a maidservant and a Canaanite woman, in whom there is no "being" (i.e., with whom marriage does not "take"). The implication is that excluded (from this halachah) are these (above) and those whom he has ravished or seduced, (where there is no "marriage"). It is, therefore, written "loved" and "hated." Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated." (I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated." I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).
R. Shimon says (on "the loved one and the hated one"): Scripture hereby apprises us that he is destined to hate her (the captive woman) and love another.
"and they bear him sons": to exclude (from the halachah of bechor) an instance where we are in doubt (as to whether the son is a nine-month birth to the [possible] first [man who cohabited with her]), or a seven-month birth to the second.
"and they bear": I might think, from the place of "bearing," to exclude a (son born by) Caesarean section; it is, therefore, written "sons" (in any event).
This tells me that the double share of the bechor (the first-born) applies only if there are many wives, some loved and some hated. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if all are loved or all hated? From "and they bear him sons, the loved one and the hated one," (the implication being) even if all are loved or all hated.
Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if there is only one wife (who bears two sons) and she is loved or hated? From (the repetition) "loved" "loved," "hated" "hated."
Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated."
(I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated."
I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).
Variantly: "and they bear him sons": Sons come under this ordinance (of bechor) and not daughters. Because we find that daughters divide the inheritance where there are no brothers, (viz. Bamidbar 27:8), we might think that this ordinance obtains with them (as well as with sons); it is, therefore, written "and they bear him sons" — Sons come under this ordinance and not daughters.
"the hated one's": i.e., even though the first-born son be the hated one's. Variantly: Scripture apprises you that the first-born son shall be the hated one's.
(דברים כא טו) כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים – שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם הֲוָיָה. יָצְאוּ שִׁפְחָה וְנָכְרִית שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם הֲוָיָה. מַשְׁמָע מוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת הַיְבָמָה וּמוֹצִיא אֶת הָאֲרוּסָה, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֲוָיָה, [תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים].
(Devarim 21:15) "If there be to a man two wives": Scripture speaks of women in whom there is "being" (i.e., being as a wife) — to exclude a maidservant and a Canaanite woman, in whom there is no "being" (i.e., with whom marriage does not "take"). The implication is that excluded (from this halachah) are these (above) and those whom he has ravished or seduced, (where there is no "marriage"). It is, therefore, written "loved" and "hated." Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated." (I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated." I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, מַגִּיד שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִהְיוֹת שׂוֹנֵא אוֹתָהּ וְאוֹהֵב אַחֶרֶת.
R. Shimon says (on "the loved one and the hated one"): Scripture hereby apprises us that he is destined to hate her (the captive woman) and love another.
וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַסָּפֵק בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן.
"and they bear him sons": to exclude (from the halachah of bechor) an instance where we are in doubt (as to whether the son is a nine-month birth to the [possible] first [man who cohabited with her]), or a seven-month birth to the second.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִמְּקוֹם הַלֵּידָה. יוֹצֵא דֹפֶן מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"and they bear": I might think, from the place of "bearing," to exclude a (son born by) Caesarean section; it is, therefore, written "sons" (in any event).
דָּבָר אַחֵר: כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מְרֻבּוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: נָשִׁים.
"two wives": This tells me only of two. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if they are more? From "wives" (in any event).
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבּוֹת, וּמִקְצָתָן אֲהוּבוֹת וּמִקְצָתָן שְׂנוּאוֹת, מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלָּן אֲהוּבוֹת, כֻּלָּן שְׂנוּאוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲהוּבָה – הָאֲהוּבָה, שְׂנוּאָה – הַשְּׂנוּאָה, רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב.
This tells me that the double share of the bechor (the first-born) applies only if there are many wives, some loved and some hated. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if all are loved or all hated? From "and they bear him sons, the loved one and the hated one," (the implication being) even if all are loved or all hated.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבּוֹת, וְכֻלָּן אֲהוּבוֹת אוֹ כֻלָּן שְׂנוּאוֹת, מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ הֵן שְׁתַּיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת וְהִיא אֲהוּבָה, אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת וְהִיא שְׂנוּאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲהוּבָה – אֲהוּבָה, שְׂנוּאָה – שְׂנוּאָה; רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב.
Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if there is only one wife (who bears two sons) and she is loved or hated? From (the repetition) "loved" "loved," "hated" "hated."
אֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲהוּבָה? אֲהוּבָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם; שְׂנוּאָה? שְׂנוּאָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. יָכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲנוּסָה וּמְפֻתָּה, שֶׁאֵינָן לוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַנָּשִׁים, מִנַּיִן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שְׂנוּאָה – שְׂנוּאָה; רִבָּה אֶת הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁהֵן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated."
וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שְׂנוּאָה – שְׂנוּאָה, רִבָּה אֶת הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם; וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שְׂנוּאָה – שְׂנוּאָה, רִבָּה.
(I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated."
יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, אֲפִלּוּ נָכְרִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן הֲוָיָה; יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲוָיָה.
I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).
וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים, מִי שֶׁהַוְּלָדוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ; יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין הַוְּלָדוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים – הַבָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, וְאֵין הַבָּנוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת. לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁהַבָּנוֹת נִכְנָסוֹת לְנַחֲלָה תַּחַת הָאַחִים, לַחֲלוֹק בְּשָׁוֶה, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא בְּכוֹרָה נוֹהֶגֶת בָּהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים, הַבָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְאֵין הַבָּנוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת.
Variantly: "and they bear him sons": Sons come under this ordinance (of bechor) and not daughters. Because we find that daughters divide the inheritance where there are no brothers, (viz. Bamidbar 27:8), we might think that this ordinance obtains with them (as well as with sons); it is, therefore, written "and they bear him sons" — Sons come under this ordinance and not daughters.
וְהָיָה הַבֵּן – וְלֹא טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.
"and the first-born son be the hated one's": and not a tumtum (one whose sex is concealed) or a hermaphrodite.
הַבְּכוֹר – וְלֹא הַסָּפֵק.
"and the first-born": and not one whose first-born status is in doubt.
לַשְּׂנִיאָה – הַכָּתוּב מְבַשֶּׂרְךָ שֶׁבֵּן הַבְּכוֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה.
"the hated one's": i.e., even though the first-born son be the hated one's. Variantly: Scripture apprises you that the first-born son shall be the hated one's.