Marrying Meirav and Michal

Shaul then told Dovid he could marry his other daughter, Michal, if he killed one hundred of their enemy. Dovid HaMelech killed two hundred and brought physical proof. Dovid told Shaul, “Your daughter is married to me by dint of me forgoing the riches you owe me together with this physical proof I am delivering now.” (Although Dovid forgave the riches before, that was deemed a mistake and a nullity since it did not end in his marriage to Meirav.) Shaul initially accepted the declaration. Later, he reneged.

Dovid said that it was too late to change his mind. “I am already married to your daughter.”

Shaul said, “You are not. You married my daughter Michal with two items: loan forgiveness and the physical proof. Since the loan forgiveness is inadequate, the other item is likewise ineffective when coupled with it.”

Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Korcha opines that this time Shaul was incorrect. Dovid HaMelech was indeed married to Michal.

The practical halacha follows Dovid HaMelech in this dispute. Kiddushin is effective if someone marries a woman with loan forgiveness in addition to an item of value. Still, Shaul did not give Michal to Dovid and married her to Palti Ben Layish instead.

Rebbe Yosi’s opinion is that the first marriage between Meirav and Dovid was effective. He proves this from a verse (II Shmuel 21:8) that states that Michal had five sons. We know she did not. Michal died childless. Those sons were actually sons of Meirav. The Navi identifies them as Michal’s children to compare Meirav to Michal. Just as everyone agrees that Dovid HaMelech’s marriage to Michal was effective, so too was his marriage to Meirav.

This begs the question of how Dovid HaMelech could be halachically married to two sisters. Even if Dovid HaMelech gave a get to Meirav (which some suggest he did), he would still not be allowed to marry Michal. One may not marry the sister of his divorcee. Rebbe Yose answers that by the time Dovid HaMelech married Michal, Meirav had sadly passed away. One is permitted to marry his wife’s sister if his wife passes away.

The Gemara questions Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Korcha. Why does the Navi identify the mother of those five children as Michal? He cannot accept Rebbe Yose’s answer because he holds that Meirav was never halachically married to Dovid, so her marriage cannot be compared to Michal’s.

Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Korcha provides an alternative explanation. He suggests that the Navi’s identification of Michal as the mother of these children conveys a profound lesson. Meirav had passed away, leaving behind five orphans. Michal took on the responsibility of raising these children. The Navi, by referring to them as Michal’s children, teaches us that one who raises an orphan in their home is regarded by the Torah as having given birth to them.

The Rema (CM 42:15) rules that it is permissible for a legal document to identify a stepson as a biological son without it being considered an error. The Vilna Gaon traces the source of this halacha back to the Gemara’s teaching. The Torah equates raising a child to giving birth to them, thereby establishing a legal basis for considering a stepson as a biological son in certain contexts.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, (Igros Moshe Vol. 8, pg. 322) draws upon the Rema and the Vilna Gaon’s interpretation to address the question of how an adoptive son should be called up to the Torah. He argues that an adoptive son may be called up using the name of his adoptive father. This is again based on the principle that raising a son is equivalent to giving birth to him.

However, Rav Shlomo Zalman, zt”l, reportedly disagreed. One should seek guidance for practical halacha.