There is a lot to speak about (Yossi - this is more your type of thing, not mine). I just want to make 1 point.
The gemara says that Onen did not have regular biah bec. he wanted to avoid having a child since "lo lo yihyeh hazerah" - meaning the child would not be his. What kind of rationale is this? From all perspectives of the halacha we consider the child to be his, so what was his concern? Rashi writes in chumash that Yehuda told Onen to do Yibum and call the child after Er. Ramban asks that the gemara already says that there is no requirement to call the child "al shem achiv hameis". The Re'eim answers that we are motzi the pasuk from peshuto based on a gezeira shava to nachala (yevamos 24a) which is only after matan torah, but before matan torah it was k'pshuto that the child was called after the dead brother. Based on this it seems that although after matan torah we understand the pasuk to be limited to inheritance (and actually refers to the yaveim not the child) and we don't consider the child to be that of the dead brother. Prior to matan torah we consider the child for all purposes to be the child of the dead brother - the father doesn't even have the right to name the child. Therefore, Onen did not want to have a child since the child would not carry his name at all.
1 comment:
even after מתן תורה the whole point of the מצווה of יבום is for the child to carry on the dead brothers תפקיד in this world. you do not have to be a mystic, just look at the way the חינוך explains the מצווה. We know that ברא כרעא דאבוה the gemara also says one should continue in the way of his fathers way of earning a living. If you ARE mystically inclined then you would say (as the ספרים do) that the whole concept of monetary ירושה is linked to this idea of continuing the fathers תפקיד.
Post a Comment