Where in the Torah and what does it say about a woman who raises somebody else's children and treats them equally to her own as if they were her own children.
What does the torah say about the obligations and rewards. The case is where a husband is widowed and remarries a widow, the second wife brings up the children from the first husbands marraige as if they were her own.
Is there a special phrase or term for this mitzvah?

Sanhedrin 19b as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf


5) ONE WHO RAISES ANOTHER'S CHILDREN

(a) Question: What does R. Yehoshua ben Korchah learn from "Benei Michal...Asher Yoledah l'Adri'el?

1. Question: They were not Michal's sons, rather Merav's sons!

(b) Answer (to both questions): They were Merav's sons; Michal raised them, so they are called her sons;

1. This teaches that one who raises an orphan is credited as if he fathered him.

(c) R. Chanina learns this from "...Yulad Ben l'No'omi...Oved".

1. Question: He was not No'omi's son, rather, Rus' son!

2. Answer: Even though he was Rus' son, because No'omi' raised him, he is called No'omi's son.

(d) (R. Yochanan): We learn from "Yered Avi Gedor...(names of Moshe) Benei Bisyah Vas Paro Asher Lakach Mared".

1. Mared is Kalev - he is called Mared because he rebelled against the counsel of the other Meraglim.

2. Question: Moshe was not Basyah's son, rather, Yocheved's!

3. Answer: Even though he was Yocheved's son, because Basyah raised him, he is called her son.

(e) (R. Elazar): We learn from "Ga'alta bi'Zro'a Amecha Benei Yakov v'Yosef"

1. Question: Benei Yisrael descend from Yakov, (most are) not from Yosef!

2. Answer: Since Yosef provided their food, they are called by his name.

Are they considered halachically children? I.e. do adopted children have the same halachos to their parents that biological children do, in terms of kibud av v'eim, shiva etc.?

quote:

Are they considered halachically children? I.e. do adopted children have the same halachos to their parents that biological children do, in terms of kibud av v'eim, shiva etc.?

Inversely related, I heard a rabbi who had some adopted children in addition to his biological children that he was told there are constraints against him for example hugging his adopted daughter which would not be a restriction against his biological daughter, and he was somewhat beside himself at the thought of denying an adopted child the exact same type of affection he would give a biological child.

Is this an established halachic position?

If so, I can think of some ways that a father's obligation to refuse physical contact with an adopted daughter could limit her ability to honor her father in the same way as a biological daughter might.

I will have to look it up as to where the entry is located (but I am sure Rav. Chaim can do this far more accurately, efficiently) but I know that children who are adopted have more rights even than the biological ones, because they were chosen. We know this because their inheritance can never be diminished and a wayward biological son is able to be deprived of certain rights based upon bad behaviour. I am saying this poorly/clumsily, but that is roughly the way it was explained to me.

Yocheved

Quote " but I know that children who are adopted have more rights even than the biological ones, because they were chosen. We know this because their inheritance can never be diminished and a wayward biological son is able to be deprived of certain rights based upon bad behavior."

I'm not sure about that. First, even a wayward son it's not so simple that you can cut him off. BB 133b as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf


Shmuel told Rav Yehudah 'Do not be party to a father who transfers inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son, all the more so from a good son to a bad son!

And for an adopted son, even if you chose him, what gives him the right more than a regular son if he goes wayward.?

I would like to say that there is no difference than the adopted son has the status as an "orphan", thus needs to be treated with more empathy than a regular kid. Also, since they're not blood relatives (and technically they could marry) thus no intimacy between the opposite genders like anyone else who's not a blood relative.

I have read material on this, having raised orphans. I will do my best to find the entries to support my claim. You are certainly entitled to it. Remember, however, Rav, that i have no Talmud of my own, so it may take me a bit. Please be patient.

Yocheved

I am familiar with the reference you mention, however, it IS IN THE MAN's RIGHTS to diminish a portion of the inheritance, even if it is not appropriate. My understanding is that the man DOES NOT have those rights to diminish the inheritance of a son he has adopted. Presumably because enough has been taken from him in his life (natural parents) already.

I am still looking for more information if possible? How does one refer to a women who has raised another persons children amongst her own as if they were her own? Surely this is a shining example to judaism and something which one can highlight as a positive mitzvah to all?

The following extract is taken from jewishencyclopedia.com

"A widower may not remarry until three festivals have passed after the death of his wife. If, however, she left him with little children needing the care of a mother, or if he had not yet discharged his duty of propagating the species, i.e., if he had no children (see above), he might remarry after a lapse of seven days (M. Ḳ. 23a; "Yad," Ebel, vi. 5; Yoreh De'ah, 392)."

I would like to ask that seeing as it states "A widower may not remarry until three festivals have passed after the death of his wife. If, however, she left him with little children needing the care of a mother" does this mean that there is a special obligation on the second wife to raise the children? Is there any special referal of this or does this mitzvah have a special name?

quote:

I would like to ask that seeing as it states "A widower may not remarry until three festivals have passed after the death of his wife. If, however, she left him with little children needing the care of a mother" does this mean that there is a special obligation on the second wife to raise the children? Is there any special referal of this or does this mitzvah have a special name?

Basically it is so that the father will have someone to look after his children.

I realise that but is it just expected of the new wife to do this?

Presumably she married him on the understanding/condition that she would look after his children.

Yes. To my understanding, the woman MARRYING a man with children already knows this and has accepted this responsibility. That is DIFFERENT in that she ahs taken a man for herself and his children, but she has the benefit of marriage. A woman who takes on orphans NOT her husbands, but simply out of the grace of her heart, has performed a different sort of mitzvah because she presumably had no compensation and was in no way obligated.

I.E. WHen I married my husband, he had children and I took that responsibility. But I not only got a benefit (my husband) but also it was a condition of that benefit. But when I adopted my eight foster children, there was NO obligation and no tangible benefit.

At least that is how I understand it.