Today in Jewish History:
• Tzemach Tzedek Departs Petersburg (1843)
In 1843, the Interior Ministry of the Czarist government convened a rabbinical conference in the Russian capital of Petersburg, to the end of imposing changes in Jewish communal life and religious practice. Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (1789-1866, known as the "Tzemach Tzedek" after his Halachic works by that name) was invited; as a primary figure in the leadership of Russian Jewry, his compliance was required to lend legitimacy to the government's proposed "reforms". In the course of the conference, the Tzemach Tzeddek was placed under arrest no less than 22 (!) times for his refusal to cooperate. When he finally departed Petersburg on the 26th of Av, he had successfully prevented the government's disruption of traditional Jewish life.
Links:
A Brief Biography of the Tzemach Tzedek
More on the Tzemach Tzeddek
Daily Quote:
One should cast himself into a fiery furnace rather than shame his fellow in public[Talmud, Sotah 10b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Re'eh, 3rd Portion Deuteronomy 12:29-13:19 with Rashi
• Chapter 12
29When the Lord, your God cuts off the nations to which you will come to drive them out from before you, and when you drive them out and dwell in their land, כטכִּי יַכְרִית יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לָרֶשֶׁת אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֹתָם וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בְּאַרְצָם:
30beware, lest you be attracted after them, after they are exterminated from before you; and lest you inquire about their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? And I will do likewise." להִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵי הִשָּׁמְדָם מִפָּנֶיךָ וּפֶן תִּדְרשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה כֵּן גַּם אָנִי:
Lest you be attracted: Heb. פֶּן-תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחִרֵיהֶם Onkelos renders תִּנָּקֵשׁ as an expression of מוֹקֵשׁ, a “snare.” [However,] I say that he was not meticulous in examining the language, for we do not find a“nun” (נ) in [any form of] the verb “to snare,” not even as a root letter that is [sometimes] omitted from it. However, as an expression denoting vehement movement [from place to place] and rattling, we do find a“nun” (נ) , as in“and his knees knocked נָקְשָׁן one against the other [in fear]” (Dan. 5:6). Here, too, I say that פֶּן-תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחִרֵיהֶם means “lest you be attracted to them,” i.e., by becoming bound up in what they do. Similarly,“May a creditor search out (יִנָקֵּשׁ) all that he has” (Ps. 109: 11)-here David cursed the wicked that he should have many creditors and they should continually go after and be attracted to his money. פן תנקש: אונקלוס תרגם לשון מוקש. ואני אומר שלא חש לדקדק בלשון, שלא מצינו נו"ן בלשון יוקש ואפילו ליסוד הנופל ממנו, אבל בלשון טירוף וקשקוש מצינו נו"ן (דניאל ה, ו) וארכובתיה דא לדא נקשן. ואף זה אני אומר, פן תנקש אחריהם פן תטרף אחריהם להיות כרוך אחר מעשיהם, וכן (תהלים קט, יא) ינקש נושה לכל אשר לו, מקלל את הרשע להיות עליו נושים רבים ויהיו מחזירין ומתנקשין אחר ממונו:
Beware, lest you be attracted after them, after they are exterminated from before you: [God says:] After you see that I will annihilate them from before you, you ought to consider why these [people] were exterminated; because of the corrupt actions that were in their hands [i.e., that they had committed]. Accordingly, you should not act likewise, lest others come and exterminate you. — [Sifrei 14:54] אחרי השמדם מפניך: אחר שתראה שאשמידם מפניך, יש לך לתת לב מפני מה נשמדו אלו, מפני מעשים מקולקלים שבידיהם, אף אתה לא תעשה כך שלא יבואו אחרים וישמידוך:
How do [these nations] serve [their gods?]: [Until now,] the only cases that incurred the [death] penalty for idolatry were slaughtering, causing to go up in smoke, libation, and prostration [before any other god], as it says,“[He who slaughters [a sacrifice] to the gods shall be destroyed] except to the Lord alone” (Exod. 22:19). [This means that the of death punishment is incurred if one commits] things that are done for the Most High [namely the four aforementioned types of worship]. Here [Scripture] teaches you that if it is customary to worship a particular idol by some other rite, such as defacating before [Baal] Peor or casting a stone at Mercurius, this is considered its worship, and [one who performs that form of worship] is liable [to the death penalty]. However, regarding slaughtering, causing to go up in smoke, libation, and prostration, even though it is not customary [for that idol], one is liable [to the death penalty]. — [Sanh. 60b] איכה יעבדו: לפי שלא ענש על עבודת כוכבים ומזלות אלא על זבוח וקטור ונסוך והשתחואה, כמו שכתוב (שמות כב, יט) בלתי לה' לבדו, דברים הנעשים לגבוה בא ולמדך כאן, שאם דרכה של עבודה זרה לעבדה בדבר אחר, כגון פוער לפעור, וזורק אבן למרקוליס, זו היא עבודתו וחייב. אבל זבוח וקטור ונסוך והשתחואה, אפילו שלא כדרכה חייב:
31You shall not do so to the Lord, your God; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates, they did to their gods, for also their sons and their daughters they would burn in fire to their gods. לאלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כֵן לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי כָל תּוֹעֲבַת יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם כִּי גַם אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם יִשְׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם:
for also their sons [and their daughters they would burn in fire to their gods]: The word גַם, “also,” [comes] to include their fathers and mothers [among those they burned]. Rabbi Akiva stated,“I [once] saw a heathen who bound his father before his dog, which then devoured him.” [Sifrei] [The dog represents the idol, either because it was made in the form of a dog, or this is a pejorative. The dog’s eating the father means that the heathen burned his father in fire before the idol (Zedah Laderech).] כי גם את בניהם: גם, לרבות את אבותיהם ואמותיהם. אמר ר' עקיבא אני ראיתי נכרי שכפתו לאביו לפני כלבו ואכלו:
Chapter 13
1Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. אאֵת כָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ:
Everything [that I command you]: less significant [commandments] as well as more significant ones. — [Sifrei] את כל הדבר: קלה כחמורה:
that you shall be careful to do: [This statement] attaches a negative commandment to the positive commandments mentioned in this parashah , for wherever הִשָּׁמֵר is used, it is an expression of a negative commandment. Lashes, however, are not incurred for [infringement of a prohibition when] the term הִשָּׁמֵר is attached to a positive commandment. תשמרו לעשות: ליתן לא תעשה על עשה האמורים בפרשה. שכל השמר לשון לא תעשה הוא, אלא שאין לוקין על השמר של עשה:
You shall neither add to it: [e.g., placing] five chapters in tefillin [instead of four], or [using] five species for the lulav [instead of four], or [reciting] four blessings [instead of three] for the “blessing of the kohanim.” - [Sifrei] לא תסף עליו: חמשה טוטפות בתפילין, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות בברכת כהנים:
2If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, בכִּי יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת:
[If there will arise among you a prophet…] and he gives you a sign:Heb. אוֹת, [meaning a sign] in the heavens, as it is stated in the case of Gideon [who said to the angel]:“then show me a sign (אוֹת) ” (Jud. 6:17), and then it says [further],“let it be dry only upon the fleece [and upon all the ground let there be dew]” (Jud. 6:39). ונתן אליך אות: בשמים, כענין שנאמר בגדעון (שופטים ו, יז) ועשית לי אות, ואומר (שם ו, לט) יהי נא חורב אל הגזה וגו':
or a wonder: Heb. מוֹפֵת, [meaning a sign] on the earth. (other texts [of Rashi read as follows]: או מופת: בארץ. (ס"א:
and he gives you a sign: in the heavens, as is written,“and they [i.e., the sun, the moon, and the stars] shall be for signs (לְאֹתֹת) and for seasons” [Gen. 1: 14]. ונתן אליך אות: בשמים דכתיב והיו לאותות ולמועדים:
or a wonder: on the earth, as is written, “If there will be dew on the fleece only, and upon all the ground, dry” [Jud. 6:39]). Even so, you shall not listen to him. But if you say, “Why then does the Holy One, blessed is He, give him the power to perform a sign? [Scripture replies,] ”for the Lord, your God, is testing you [… whether you really love the Lord your God]" (verse 4). - [Sifrei; San. 90a] או מופת: בארץ דכתיב אם טל יהיה על הגזה לבדה ועל כל הארץ חורב) אעפ"כ לא תשמע לו וא"ת מפני מה נותן לו הקב"ה ממשלה לעשות אות כי מנסה ה' אלהיכם אתכם:
3and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them," גוּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתָּם וְנָעָבְדֵם:
4you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul. דלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ אֶל חוֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא כִּי מְנַסֶּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לָדַעַת הֲיִשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם:
5You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. האַחֲרֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֹתוֹ תִירָאוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּבְקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ וּבוֹ תִדְבָּקוּן:
keep His commandments: the Torah of Moses. ואת מצותיו תשמרו: תורת משה:
heed His voice: the voice of the prophets. ובקולו תשמעו: בקול הנביאים:
worship Him: in His sanctuary. — [Sifrei] ואתו תעבודו: במקדשו:
and cleave to Him: Cleave to His ways: bestow kindness, bury the dead, and visit the sick, just as the Holy One, blessed is He, did. — [Sotah 14a] ובו תדבקון: הדבק בדרכיו. גמול חסדים, קבור מתים, בקר חולים, כמו שעשה הקב"ה:
6And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst. ווְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת כִּי דִבֶּר סָרָה עַל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם | מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְהַפֹּדְךָ מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:
[Because he spoke] falsehood: Heb. סָרָה, lit. something turned away, removed from the world, which neither existed nor was created, and which I never commanded him to say; destodre in Old French, to distort. סרה: דבר המוסר מן העולם שלא היה ולא נברא ולא צויתיו לדבר כן, דישטולוד"א בלע"ז [הסרה]:
and redeemed you from of the house of bondage: Even if God had no [other claim] on you other than that He had redeemed you, it would be sufficient [to demand your obedience]. — [Sifrei] והפדך מבית עבדים: אפילו אין לו עליך אלא שפדאך, דיו:
7If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known." זכִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ אוֹ בִנְךָ אוֹ בִתְּךָ אוֹ | אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:
If [your brother…] tempts you: The term הֲסָתָה always denotes inciting as it is said, אִם ה׳ הֶסִיתְךָ, “If the Lord has incited you against me” (I Sam. 26:19); ametra in Old French, will incite, that he tempts him to do so. כי יסיתך: אין הסתה אלא גרוי, שנאמר (שמואל א' כו יט) אם ה' הסיתך בי, אמיטר"א בלע"ז [יסית], שמשיאו לעשות כן:
your brother: from the father[’s side]. אחיך: מאב:
the son of your mother: from the mother[’s side]. בן אמך: מאם:
of your embrace: The one that lies in your embrace and is attached (מְחֻקָּה) to you; afichiede in Old French, bound, attached (Greenberg), afichier in Old French, to attach (Gukovitzki). This is similar to וּמֵחֵיק הָאָרֶץ (Ezek. 43:14), which refers to the base [of the altar] that is affixed firmly in the ground. חיקך: השוכבת בחיקך ומחוקה בך אפיקייד"א בלע"ז [דבוקה], וכן (יחזקאל מג, יד) ומחיק הארץ, מיסוד התקוע בארץ:
[Or your friend,] who is as your own soul: This refers to your father. Scripture enumerates those [persons] who are dear to you; how much more so [must you apply this] to others [and not spare them]! אשר כנפשך: זה אביך. פירש לך הכתוב את החביבין לך, קל וחומר לאחרים:
[If your brother…tempts you] in secret: Scripture speaks of what commonly [occurs, but does not exclude the other case, i.e., one who entices publicly], for usually the one who entices speaks clandestinely. Similarly, Solomon [describing an episode of enticement,] says: “In the twilight, in the evening time, in the blackness of night and the darkness” (Prov. 7:9). - [Sifrei] בסתר: דבר הכתוב בהווה, שאין דברי מסית אלא בסתר. וכן שלמה הוא אומר (משלי ז, ט) בנשף בערב יום באישון לילה ואפלה:
[Let us go and worship other gods,] which neither you nor your forefathers have known: This would be a great disgrace for you, for not even the heathen nations forsake what their forefathers have handed down to them. Yet this [man] says to you, “Abandon what your forefathers have handed down to you!” - [Sifrei] אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבותיך: דבר זה גנאי גדול הוא לך שאף האומות אין מניחין מה שמסרו להם אבותיהם, וזהו אומר לך עזוב מה שמסרו לך אבותיך:
8Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; חמֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ:
Let us go and worship other gods…] whether near to you or far [from you]: Why did [Scripture] specify [gods] that are“near… or far”? Rather, this is what Scripture says: Through [knowing] the character of those [gods] close to you, you learn the character of those far from you; just as those close to you are devoid of substance, so are those far from you devoid of substance. — [San. 61b; Sifrei] הקרובים אליך או הרחוקים: למה פרט קרובים ורחוקים, אלא כך אמר הכתוב, מטיבן של קרובים אתה למד טיבן של רחוקים, כשם שאין ממש בקרובים כך אין ממש ברחוקים:
[gods… far from you,] from one end of the earth [to the other end of the earth]: This refers to the sun, the moon, and the legion of heavens [i.e., the stars], which extend from one end of the world to the other. — [Sifrei] מקצה הארץ: זו חמה ולבנה וצבא השמים שהן מהלכין מסוף העולם ועד סופו:
9You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him. טלֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו:
You shall not desire him: Heb. לֹא-תֹאבֶה. You shall feel no longing (תאב) towards him; do not love him (לֹא תֹאהֲבֶנוּ)). Since it is said, “You shall love your fellow man as yourself” (Lev. 19:18), [therefore it is necessary to tell us that] this person, [however,] you shall not love. לא תאבה לו: לא תהא תאב לו. לא תאהבנו. לפי שנאמר (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך, את זה לא תאהב:
and do not hearken to him: when he pleads for his life, that you should pardon him. [It is necessary to state this] because it says, “[If you see the donkey of your enemy] you shall surely help him” (Exod. 23:5); this person, [however,] you shall not help. ולא תשמע אליו: בהתחננו על נפשו למחול לו, לפי שנאמר (שמות כג, ה) עזוב תעזוב עמו, לזה לא תעזוב:
neither shall you pity him: [It is necessary to state this] because it says, “you shall not stand idly by the blood of your fellow man” (Lev. 19:16). This person [however] you shall not pity. — [Sifrei] ולא תחוס עינך עליו: לפי שנאמר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תעמוד על דם רעך, על זה לא תחוס:
[neither shall you…] have mercy upon him: Do not search for merits in his favor. ולא תחמול: לא תהפוך בזכותו:
nor shall you shield him: If you are aware of something that will condemn him, you are not permitted to remain silent. — [Sifrei] ולא תכסה עליו: אם אתה יודע לו חובה אינך רשאי לשתוק:
10But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. יכִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה:
But you shall surely kill him: (If he has left the court, acquitted, have him returned for conviction;) if [on the other hand,] he has left the court convicted, do not return him for acquittal. — [Sifrei] כי הרג תהרגנו: [אם יצא מבית דין זכאי, החזירהו לחובה] יצא מבית דין חייב, אל תחזירהו לזכות:
Your hand shall be the first against him [to put him to death]: The one who was tempted [to idolatry by this person] has the duty to put him to death. [However] if he did not die by his hand, he must die by the hand of others, as is stated (in this verse), “and afterwards the hand of all the people, etc.” - [Sifrei] ידך תהיה בו בראשונה: מצוה ביד הניסת להמיתו. לא מת בידו, ימות ביד אחרים, שנאמר ויד כל העם וגו':
11And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. יאוּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת כִּי בִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:
12And all Israel shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer do any evil such as this in your midst. יבוְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּן וְלֹא יוֹסִפוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כַּדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה בְּקִרְבֶּךָ:
13If you hear in one of your cities which the Lord, your God, is giving you to dwell therein, saying, יגכִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּאַחַת עָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לָשֶׁבֶת שָׁם לֵאמֹר:
[If you will hear in one of your cities which the Lord, your God, gives you] to dwell therein: [The words“to dwell therein” are added] to exclude Jerusalem, which was not apportioned as a dwelling place [for a particular tribe]. — [Sifrei] לשבת שם: פרט לירושלים שלא ניתנה לדירה:
If you hear… saying: Heb. לֵאמֹר, lit. to say. [If you hear people] saying thus: כי תשמע וגו' לאמר: אומרים כן, יצאו וגו':
14"Unfaithful men have gone forth from among you and have led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods, which you have not known.' " ידיָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתֶּם:
[Unfaithful] men: Heb. בְּנֵי-בְלִיַּעַל -people without a yoke בְּלִי עוֹל, who have thrown off the yoke of the Omnipresent. — [Sifrei] בני בליעל: בלי עול. שפרקו עולו של מקום:
[Unfaithful] men: But not women. אנשים: ולא נשים:
the inhabitants of their city: But not the inhabitants of another city. From here [our Rabbis] said: A city is not considered a“wayward city” (עִיר הַנִדַּחַת) unless men (אֲנָשִׁים) lead it astray, and unless those who lead it astray are from within it. — [San. 111b] ישבי עירם: ולא יושבי עיר אחרת. מכאן אמרו אין נעשית עיר הנדחת עד שידיחוה אנשים, ועד שיהיו מדיחיה מתוכה:
15Then you shall inquire, investigate, and ask thoroughly, and, behold, it is true, the matter is certain, that such abomination has been committed in your midst: טווְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּקִרְבֶּךָ:
Then you shall inquire, investigate, and ask thoroughly: Heb. וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב. From this verse [in combination with others as explained], our Rabbis learned [the law of] the “seven investigations” [in a court of law], since Scripture uses many expressions [of investigation]. Here there are three expressions: דְרִישָׁה, חֲקִירָה, and הֵיטֵב [i.e., “inquiry,” “investigation,” and “thoroughly”]. The term וְשָׁאַלְתָּ, “ask,” is not counted as one [of the seven investigations (חֲקִירוֹת)] and the the cross-examinations (בְּדִיקוֹת) [regarding accompanying circumstances] are derived from it. [So far, we have three expressions.] And elsewhere [in the case of collusive witnesses,] it says: וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשּׁוֹפְטִים הֵיטֵב, “And the judges shall inquire thoroughly” (Deut. 19:18). [This adds two more expressions, דְרִישָׁה and הֵיטֵב, to make five altogether.] And still elsewhere [in the case of idolatry,] it says: וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב, “And you shall inquire thoroughly” (Deut. 17:4) [thus adding two more expressions, דְרִישָׁה and הֵיטֵב, to make up a final total of seven investigatory expressions demonstrating the law of “seven investigations”]. And our Rabbis learned a גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה [i.e., an inference from an identical word in two passages, which teaches us that the laws in one passage apply to the other passage as well] from [the words] הֵיטֵב הֵיטֵב, to place what is stated in one context in the other context. [I.e., it is accounted as if all seven written in the context of the “wayward city,” as well as in the cases of collusive witnesses and individuals who worshipped idols. I.e., all the seven expressions can be connected together to make seven investigations.] - [San. 40a; Sifrei] [The judges would ask the witnesses the following seven questions: 1) In what shemitah cycle was the crime committed? 2) In what year? 3) In what month? 4) In what day of the month? 5) On what day [of the week]? 6) In what hour? 7) In what place? (San. 5:1)] ודרשת וחקרת ושאלת היטב: מכאן למדו שבע חקירות מרבוי המקרא. כאן יש שלש דרישה וחקירה והיטב. ושאלת, אינו מן המנין, וממנו למדו בדיקות. ובמקום אחר הוא אומר (דברים יט, יח) ודרשו השופטים היטב. ועוד במקום אחר הוא אומר (שם יז, ד) ודרשת היטב. ולמדו היטב היטב לגזירה שוה, ליתן האמור של זה בזה:
16You shall surely strike down the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroy it with all that is in it and its livestock, with the edge of the sword. טזהַכֵּה תַכֶּה אֶת ישְׁבֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא לְפִי חָרֶב הַחֲרֵם אֹתָהּ וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ וְאֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ לְפִי חָרֶב:
You shall surely strike down: Heb. הַכֵּה תַכֶּה. [The double expression is used to explain that] if you cannot execute the death penalty that is prescribed for them, put them to death in some other manner. — [Sifrei ; B.M 31b] הכה תכה: אם אינך יכול להמיתם במיתה הכתובה בהם, המיתם באחרת:
17And you shall collect all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn with fire the city and all its spoil, completely, for the Lord, your God; and it shall be a heap of destruction forever, never to be rebuilt. יזוְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ כָּלִיל לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָיְתָה תֵּל עוֹלָם לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד:
[and burn with fire the city…] for the Lord your God: [i.e.,] for His Name and for His sake. לה' אלהיך: לשמו ובשבילו:
18And nothing that is doomed to destruction shall cling to your hand, so that the Lord may return from His fierce wrath, and grant you compassion, and be compassionate with you, and multiply you, as He swore to your forefathers. יחוְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם לְמַעַן יָשׁוּב יְהֹוָה מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:
that the Lord may return from His fierce wrath: For as long as idol worship [exists] in the world, the fierce wrath [of God exists] in the world. — [Sifrei; San. 111b] למען ישוב ה' מחרון אפו: שכל זמן שעבודה זרה בעולם, חרון אף בעולם:
19For you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is proper in the eyes of the Lord, your God. יטכִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לַעֲשׂוֹת הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 97-176
• Verses 97-176
97. O how I love Your Torah! All day it is my discussion.
98. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me.
99. From all my teachers I have gained wisdom, for Your testimonies are my discussion.
100. I will be more perceptive than elders, because I have guarded Your precepts.
101. I have restrained my feet from every evil path, that I might keep Your word.
102. I have not turned away from Your judgments, for You have instructed me.
103. How sweet are Your words to my palate, [sweeter] than honey to my mouth!
104. From Your precepts I gain understanding, therefore I hate every path of falsehood.
105. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
106. I have sworn-and I will fulfill it-to keep Your righteous judgments.
107. I am afflicted to the extreme; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your promise.
108. Accept with favor, O Lord, the offerings of my lips, and teach me Your laws.
109. My soul is in danger always, yet I have not forgotten Your Torah.
110. The wicked laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
111. I have taken Your testimonies as an eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.
112. I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes, forever, to the last.
113. I despise vain thoughts, but I love Your Torah.
114. You are my refuge and my shield; I place hope in Your promise.
115. Turn away from me, you evildoers, and I will keep the commandments of my God.
116. Support me according to Your promise, and I will live; let me not be shamed because of my hope.
117. Sustain me, and I will be saved, and I will be engrossed in Your statutes always.
118. You trample all who stray from Your statutes, for their ploy is a lie.
119. You have purged all the wicked of the earth like dross, therefore I love Your testimonies.
120. My flesh bristles from fear of You, and I am in awe of Your judgments.
121. I practiced justice and righteousness; leave me not to my oppressors.
122. Guarantee Your servant goodness; let not the wicked exploit me.
123. My eyes long for Your salvation, and for the word of Your righteousness.
124. Treat Your servant according to Your kindness, and teach me Your statutes.
125. I am Your servant; grant me understanding, that I may know Your testimonies.
126. It is time to act for the Lord; they have abrogated Your Torah.
127. Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, even fine gold.
128. Therefore I affirmed all Your precepts; I have hated every path of falsehood.
129. Your testimonies are wondrous, therefore does my soul guard them.
130. Your opening words illuminate, enlightening the simple.
131. I opened my mouth and swallowed, because I craved Your commandments.
132. Turn to me and favor me, as is [Your] law for those who love Your Name.
133. Set my steps in Your word, and let no iniquity rule over me.
134. Deliver me from the oppression of man, and I will keep Your precepts.
135. Let Your face shine upon Your servant, and teach me Your statutes.
136. My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Your Torah.
137. Righteous are you, O Lord, and Your judgments are upright.
138. You commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and great faithfulness.
139. My zeal consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten Your words.
140. Your word is very pure, and Your servant cherishes it.
141. I am young and despised, yet I do not forget Your precepts.
142. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth.
143. Trouble and anguish have taken hold of me, yet Your commandments are my delight.
144. Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding, that I may live.
145. I call out with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I will keep Your statutes.
146. I call out to You; save me, and I will observe Your testimonies.
147. I rose before dawn and cried out; my hope is in Your word.
148. My eyes preceded the night watches, that I may discuss Your word.
149. Hear my voice in keeping with Your kindness; O Lord, grant me life as is Your practice.
150. Those who pursue mischief draw near; they are far from Your Torah.
151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.
152. From the beginning I discerned from Your testimonies that You had established them forever.
153. Behold my affliction and deliver me, for I have not forgotten Your Torah.
154. Wage my battle and redeem me; grant me life for the sake of Your word.
155. Salvation is far from the wicked, for they seek not Your statutes.
156. Your mercies are great, O Lord; grant me life as is Your practice.
157. My pursuers and my enemies are many, yet I did not turn away from Your testimonies.
158. I saw traitors and I quarreled with them, because they do not keep Your words.
159. Behold how I love Your precepts; grant me life, O Lord, according to Your kindness.
160. The beginning of Your word is truth, and forever are all Your righteous judgements.
161. Princes have pursued me without cause, but it is Your word my heart fears.
162. I rejoice at Your word, like one who finds abundant spoil.
163. I hate falsehood and abhor it, but Your Torah I love.
164. Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments.
165. There is abundant peace for those who love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them.
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.
167. My soul has kept Your testimonies, and I love them intensely.
168. I have kept Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You
169. Let my prayer approach Your presence, O Lord; grant me understanding according to Your word.
170. Let my supplication come before You; save me according to Your promise.
171. My lips will utter praise, for You have taught me Your statutes.
172. My tongue will echo Your word, for all Your commandments are just.
173. Let Your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen Your precepts.
174. I long for Your salvation, O Lord, and Your Torah is my delight.
175. Let my soul live, and it will praise You, and let Your judgment help me.
176. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 8• Lessons in Tanya
• Tuesday, Menachem Av 26, 5775 · August 11, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, middle of Epistle 8
However, the following must be understood: Since the Divine illumination must inevitably result from G‑d’s attribute of kindness and His tzedakah, why is man’s service necessary at all?
The Alter Rebbe answers this question by explaining that parallel to the above attribute, there also exists a Divine attribute of severity and contraction, that seeks to limit and screen the diffusion of the G‑dly light. It is man’s practice of kindness and tzedakah that ensures that the attribute of severity and Gevurah will not hinder the flow of Divine radiance that is to be revealed to him during prayer.
והנה מודעת זאת שיש למעלה גם כן מדת הגבורה והצמצום
Now it is well known that Above there is also an attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum
לצמצם ולהסתיר אורו יתברך, לבל יתגלה לתחתונים
that serves to contract and conceal the Divine light so that it will not become revealed to the lower worlds.
How is it, then, that this illumination is nevertheless revealed below?
אך הכל תלוי באתערותא דלתתא
However, everything depends on [man’s] arousal from below.
שאם האדם מתנהג בחסידות, להשפיע חיים וחסד כו׳
For if a man conducts himself with kindness, by bestowing life and Chesed..., through acts of charity that sustain the unfortunate,
כך מעורר למעלה
he arouses its equivalent Above, so that Divine kindness and illumination are bestowed upon him as well.
כמו שאמרו רז״ל: במדה שאדם מודד בה, מודדין לו
For, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said,1 “With the measure a man metes, it shall be measured to him.” When an individual acts in a kindly manner towards his fellow, he will be treated with kindness from Above.
אלא דלכאורה זו אינה מן המדה, כי אם להשפיע לו חיי העולם הבא לבד, כנגד מה שהוא משפיע חיי עולם הזה
It would appear, however, that this [Divine response] is not of the same measure. [Such an individual would appear to deserve] only that the life of the World to Come be granted to him, corresponding to his bestowal of life in this world,
The appropriate reward for man’s bestowal of physical life in his world should surely be a corresponding bestowal of spiritual life in a higher world, the World to Come.
אבל לא להשפיע לו חיי הארת אור ה׳ נוסח אחר: אין סוף ברוך הוא ממש
but not that he be granted the life that comes from the illumination of the actual light of G‑d,2
שיאיר ויגיה חשכו בעבודה שבלב, זו תפלה
to illumine and enlighten his darkness in “the service of the heart, meaning prayer.”
שהיא בחינת ומדרגת תשובה עילאה, כנודע
For the latter is a grade and level of “higher-level repentance” (teshuvah ilaah), as is well known,3 and as such is far superior to his actions,
שהרי היא למעלה מעלה מכל חיי עולם הבא
inasmuch as it far surpasses all the life of the World to Come.
כמו שאמרו רז״ל: יפה שעה אחת בתשובה ומעשים טובים כו׳
As our Sages, of blessed memory, taught:4 “Better one hour of repentance and good deeds [in this world than all the life of the World to Come],”
וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר באריכות, דעולם הבא אינו אלא זיו והארה וכו׳
as explained elsewhere5 at length — that the World to Come is but a gleam and reflection [of the Divine Presence].
This leaves us with an apparent disproportion — that the practice of tzedakah before one’s prayers should result in the vastly superior revelation of teshuvah ilaah during prayer.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Sotah 5b. |
| 2. | V.L.: “the actual [infinite] Ein Sof-light.” |
| 3. | Iggeret HaTeshuvah, ch. 10. |
| 4. | Avot 4:17. |
| 5. | Likkutei Amarim, Part I, conclusion of ch. 4, et al. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Tuesday, Menachem Av 26, 5775 · August 11, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 109
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)
"He shall bathe all his body in water"—Leviticus 15:16.
A person who chooses to become cleansed of any ritual impurity is commanded to immerse in a mikvah [a natural pool of water]. According to the tradition of the Oral Law, for a mikvah to be kosher it must contain enough water for [an average] person to submerge himself within them—unless it is a moving stream of water, in which case even the smallest amount of water suffices [for a smaller than average individual, or for immersing a ritually impure utensil].
Some details:
Of all the types of ritually impure people, only the zav requires immersion in a moving stream of water.
This mitzvah is not obligatory. As long as an individual has no intention of entering the Temple Mount, he may remain in his ritually impure state.
An individual's purification process is not finalized until the sun sets on the day he immerses.
There may not be anything separating between the person's body and the waters of the mikvah.
Immersing in a Mikvah (Ritual Pool)
Positive Commandment 109
Translated by Berel Bell
The 109th mitzvah is that we are commanded to immerse in the waters of a mikvah and thereby be purified from whichever form of tumah previously existed.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He must immerse his entire body in water." The Oral Tradition2 explains that [the phrase "his entire body" also teaches that] there must be enough water to cover his entire body.3 This is the minimum size of a mikvah unless the water is from a spring, in which case there is no minimum amount,4 as explained in the laws which deal with this mitzvah.
Among the conditions [governing the mikvah] is that only in the case of a zav is spring water required,5 as the verse6 states, "mayim chaim."
When we say that immersion is a mitzvah, this does not mean that any person who is tameh is required to immerse himself — as one who wears a four-cornered garment must put tzitzis on it, or that anyone with a house must build a fence around the roof. [When I say, "it is a mitzvah,"] I refer to the laws of immersion — that we are commanded that anyone who wants purification from tumah can do so only through immersion in water, after which he becomes tahor.
The Sifra7 says, "One might think that the phrase8 'He must immerse in water' is a Divine decree [and that it is an absolute requirement to immerse]. The verse therefore says, 'then he can return to the camp' [after being purified] from tumah." This hints to the principle I just explained, i.e. that the mitzvah is just the law, i.e. that one who wants to be purified should take certain steps. This law is itself the mitzvah. This does not mean however, that there is an independent requirement to immerse — should he want to remain tameh and not enter the machaneh Shechinah9 for any period of time, he may do so.
The Book of Truth (i.e. the Torah) explains that even though after the person immerses he becomes tahor, his purification is incomplete until sunset.10 The Oral Tradition also explains that during immersion he must be naked and that his entire body must come in contact with the water. As our Sages put it,11 "The phrase, 'his entire body' teaches that there can be nothing intervening between his body and the water."
We have therefore explained that this mitzvah of immersion includes the laws of mikvah, of intervening substances, and t'vul yom.12 This mitzvah is explained in tractates Mikva'os and T'vul Yom.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 15:16.
2.Sifra.
3.This is 40 se'ah of water.
4.In practice, even a mikvah of spring water must contain 40 se'ah.
5.In other cases, even for a zavah, rain water is sufficient.
6.Lev. 15:13.
7.Ibid., 16:26.
8.Ibid., 14:8.
9.Corresponding to the Temple courtyard.
10.See Lev. 22:6. A person in this state is called a t'vul yom.
11.Eruvin 4b.
12.One who has immersed and is awaiting sunset, as mentioned above.
Gerushin - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
[When a man] divorces his wife and [asserts that the divorce] will not take effect until a specific time passes, the divorce takes effect when that time arrives. Thus, this resembles [a get given on] a conditional basis, and yet it is not a conditional get.
It resembles [a get given on] a conditional basis because the divorce takes effect when the specified time arrives [as in the case of a conditional get, which is completed when the condition is fulfilled]. Nevertheless, it is not considered a conditional get because a person who divorces [his wife] conditionally has already performed the divorce, and in this instance, the man has not divorced her until the time arrives.
For this reason, a person who gives a conditional get must restate the condition [in both a positive and negative form], while this person does not have to restate his words. Nor must he comply with the other requirements of conditional agreements that we have explained.1.
Halacha 2
What is implied? [When a husband] tells his wife: "This is your get, but the divorce does not take effect until 30 days pass," she is not divorced until after the passage of 30 days. If her husband dies, or the get is lost or consumed by fire in the interim, she is not divorced.2
Halacha 3
[When the woman] went and placed [the get] in [a place] at the side of the public domain,3 and after 30 days passed it was stolen or lost, the divorce is effective. Since the get existed on the day when it took effect, and it was set aside in a designated place that is not public domain [it can serve as the medium for the divorce].4 [The governing principle is that the area at] the sides of the public domain is not the same as the public domain itself.5
Halacha 4
Similarly, if the husband makes the divorce dependent on an action,6 the same rules that govern a get that takes effect after a specific time apply. For example, [a husband] said to [his] wife: "This is your get, but the divorce does not take effect until you give me 200 zuz." After [the woman] gives [the money], the divorce takes effect.7
In this instance [as well], there is no need to restate the condition [in both a positive and negative form], nor to comply with the other requirements of conditional agreements that we have explained. For this person has not divorced [his wife] conditionally - he has not yet divorced her at all. Instead, he made the divorce dependent on a specific action, and after [that action is completed], the divorce will take effect.
Halacha 5
What is the difference between a conditional divorce and a divorce that will take effect only after a fixed time, or a divorce dependent on an action? With regard to a conditional divorce, the divorce is a fact; it is, however, not completed until the condition is fulfilled. Therefore, when the condition is fulfilled, the divorce takes effect as long as the get exists, even if it is not in the woman's possession. When the condition is fulfilled, there is no need for [the woman] to pick up [the get] or take possession, for it was given to her for the purpose of divorce. If she married before the condition was fulfilled, she need not leave [her second husband], as explained.8
With regard to a divorce that will take effect only after a fixed time or a divorce dependent on an action, by contrast, she was not given the get for the [immediate] purpose of divorce. Instead, it is considered to be an entrusted object until the specified time arrives or she performs the action. Therefore, it is necessary that the get be in her possession at that time, that she take [possession of it], or that it be in a place that she designated for it even though it is not in her domain, as we have explained.9 Only then, is she divorced by virtue [of this get].
If she marries before the specified time arrives, or before she performs the action on which the divorce is dependent, she must leave her second husband,10 and any child [born of their union] is considered illegitimate. For she is a married woman, and the divorce is not [yet] effective.
Halacha 6
When [a man] gives his wife a get and tells her: "If you do not give me 200 zuz, this get is not effective," or "...you are not divorced," he is not considered to have performed a divorce at all.11 For the get was not given on a conditional basis, nor was it made dependent on an action. The same [ruling applies] in all similar situations.
Halacha 7
When a person would like to give a conditional divorce, with the condition being that the divorce not take effect until a particular time, he should express the concept in a conditional statement, making the condition dependent on his departure or return at a specific time.12
What is implied? He tells her: "If I do not return between the present time and 30 days, this get is effective. If I do return within 30 days, this get is not effective." He [then] gives her the get. Alternatively, he should tell her: "This is your get on condition that I do not return to this country within 30 days." The same [ruling applies] in all similar situations.
Halacha 8
When a person divorces [his wife] on the condition that he not return to this country within 30 days, and he set out to return within 30 days, but became ill or was prevented [from returning by a flooding] river and did not return until after 30 days, the get is effective. Even if he protests, "I am being held back by forces beyond my control" [the get is effective].13
[The rationale is that the claim,] "I was prevented by forces beyond my control," is not accepted with regard to gittin,14 even if the husband makes it evident that he does not desire that the divorce take effect.
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when a man gives a] divorce on the condition15 that it become effective if 30 days pass without [his seeing his wife's] face. If he repeatedly came [and appeared before her], but never entered into privacy with her, and then 30 days [passed without his seeing her], the get is effective.16Although he came [and appeared before her] within 30 days [after the get was given], since he did not enter into privacy with her,17 [once the condition was fulfilled,] the get is effective.
When does the above apply? When he made the condition and said: "I accept her word with regard to [whether or] not I appeased her."18If, however, he did not accept her word, we suspect that perhaps he placated her when he came and visited her, she was willing to forego [her desire to be with him], and he nullified the get.19 For this reason, the get is unacceptable [even] after 30 days [pass without the husband seeing her].20
Similarly, when a man tells a woman: "This is your get and [it becomes effective] after twelve months pass," if he lives in the same city as she does, we suspect that he appeased her, unless he said: "I accept her word that I did not appease her."
Halacha 10
A similar [principle applies with regard to] all conditions that are dependent on her will, and the get would be nullified if she was willing to forego these conditions in favor of her husband. We suspect that perhaps he appeased her,21 unless he said: "I accept her word...."
When does the above apply? When the woman is divorced after nisu'in, for he is familiar with her.22 When, however, [a husband] divorces [his wife] after [merely] consecrating her, we do not suspect that he appeased her.
Halacha 11
[When a man gives his wife a get and tells her:] "This is your get [and it is effective] from the present time onward if I do not return within twelve months," we do not suspect that perhaps he returned in secrecy, for people do not generally come in secrecy. [Therefore,] if the time period he specified passes without his coming, the divorce is effective.23
If he dies within the twelve months, although the divorce [will become] effective, for there is no way that he can come, if she would have been obligated to perform the rite of yibbum, she should not marry until the twelve months pass and the condition is fulfilled.24
Halacha 12
When a healthy person [divorces his wife] on the condition that the get take effect if he dies, and when a sick person [divorces his wife] on the condition that the get take effect if he dies from the illness afflicting him,25 their statements are of no consequence.26 The expression "if I die" implies [that it takes effect] after his death. [Alternatively,] the intent is that [it take effect] retroactively [if he dies]. [Because of the doubt involved,] if [a man] uses the expression "If I die...," it is considered as if he said "after my death." [The get is therefore void, because] there is no concept of divorce after a person's death.27
Halacha 13
If, [however, the husband] tells her: "This is your get. If I die, [it is effective retroactively] from the present time," or "...If I die, [it is effective retroactively] from the present day,"28 the get is valid. When he dies, [his wife] is divorced.
Halacha 14
[If a husband] says: "This is your get. If I die, [it is effective retroactively] from the present time - or from the present day - after my death," when [the husband] dies, the status of his wife's divorce is in doubt.29 [We suspect that] perhaps, after saying "from the present time," he changed his mind and [did not desire that the get become effective] from the present time, and instead take effect after his death. And there is no concept of divorce after a person's death.
Halacha 15
[If a husband] says: "This is your get. [It becomes effective] when the sun emerges from its shield," it is not effective if he dies that night.30 [If he gave theget] on the condition that the sun shine and he dies that night, the get is effective, for when the sun shines [on the following day], the condition that he established becomes fulfilled.31
If [the husband gives a get and] establishes a condition: "If the sun shines, theget is effective. But if it does not shine, it is not effective," [the get] is not effective if he dies at night. For the condition was not fulfilled until after he died,32 and there is no concept of divorce after a person's death.
Halacha 16
When a person who is mortally ill has a get written for his wife and divorces her and then recovers, he cannot retract the divorce. A divorce [performed by a person in such a state] is not [governed by] the same laws as a present he gives.33 [The rationale for this distinction is] that if he were given the prerogative of retracting, the divorce would appear to take effect after death, in the same way that a present he gives is not legally transferred until after death.34
Halacha 17
[If a husband says:] "This is your get. [It is effective retroactively] from the present day if I die from this illness," and his house collapses upon him, he is bit by a snake, devoured by a lion or dies because of other similar causes, the divorce is not effective.35
Halacha 18
[If, by contrast,] he tells her: "...if I do not arise from this sickness," and his house collapses upon him, he is bit by a snake or devoured by a lion, the status of the divorce is in doubt.36
[The following rules apply when a husband tells his wife:] "Here is your get. [It is effective retroactively] from the present day if I die from this illness," and then rises [from his sickbed], walks in the marketplace,37 and afterwards falls ill and dies. We make an assessment. If he died from the first illness, the divorce is effective. If not, it is not effective. If he progresses from one illness to another illness,38 and does not arise [and walk] in the marketplace, the divorce is effective. There is no need to make an assessment.
Halacha 19
With regard to all the conditions [mentioned above], during the days between the giving of the get and his death [with its consequent] fulfillment of the condition, she is considered to be a divorced woman with regard to all matters,39 provided he does not enter into privacy with her, as explained.40
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when] a sick person desires to divorce his wife conditionally, so that if he dies she will not be obligated to perform the rite ofyibbum, but if he recovers, the divorce will not be effective; he does not desire that the get take effect [retroactively] from the time he gives it, lest the matter be overly disturbing for him.
He should write the following in the get after writing the essential portion; alternatively, he should make these statements when he gives [his wife] the get: "If I do not die, this get will not be effective. If I die, this get will be effective. If I do not die, this get will not be effective." In this manner, the conditional factor is repeated. The positive factor is stated before the negative factor,41 and the person's opening remarks do not speak of misfortune.
[If a get is given with such a condition,] the divorce will take effect when [the husband] dies,42 provided that the get reaches the woman before his death.
Halacha 21
When a husband tells a colleague:43 "Acquire this get on behalf of my wife, so that she will not be required to fulfill the rite of yibbum," and gives him the get, but the husband dies before the get reaches [the woman], the status of the divorce is in doubt. [Although there are times when a woman would be willing to marry the yavam,] it is to the advantage of most women not to be required to fulfill the rite of yibbum. Therefore, even though the get did not reach the woman, since another person acquired it on her behalf, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Halacha 22
When [a man] tells witnesses: "Write a get for my wife after twelve months," or "Write a get for my wife and give it to her after twelve months," they should write [the get] and give it to her after the time he specified. If they write it within the time he specified,44 it is void, even if they do not give it to the woman until afterwards.
If they write it after the time he specified, but [the husband] dies before they give it to her, it is void. If it is not known whether he died before the get was given, or the get was given before he died, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Halacha 23
[If a husband] instructs [agents]: "Write a get for my wife and give it to her after the Sabbatical cycle," they must write it within the first year after the conclusion of the Sabbatical cycle.45 If he told them: "...after a year," they must write it during the first month of the coming year.
If he told them: "...after a month," they must write it during the first week of the coming month. If he told them: "...after the Sabbath," they must write it before the end of Tuesday. If he told them: "...before the Sabbath," they must write it between Wednesday and the end of Friday.
Halacha 24
If they delayed and did not write and give the get at the time he specified - e.g., he told them "after a month," and they wrote the get and gave it to her after two weeks had passed in the second month, the get is unacceptable.46
Halacha 25
If [the husband] entered into privacy with [his wife] after he told [agents] to write [a get], sign it and give it to her, they should not write it. One can make an [obvious] inference. If a get that he gave her is disqualified47 when he enters into privacy with her, lest they have engaged in marital relations, how much more so should a get that was not yet written [be left unwritten]. If [the agents] wrote the get and gave it to her after he entered into privacy with her, the get is void.48
Halacha 26
[If a man] tells ten people: "Write a get for my wife," one of them should write it on behalf of all of them. [If he tells them:] "All of you, write it," one should write it in the presence of all of them.
[If he tells them:] "Bring this get to my wife," one of them should bring it to her on behalf of all of them. [If he tells them:] "All of you, bring this get to my wife," one should bring it [to her] in the presence of all of them.49
Halacha 27
[If a man] tells ten people: "Write a get, sign it and give it to my wife," one of them should write it, two should sign it, and one should give it to her. It is acceptable even if one person writes it, he serves as one of the two witnesses who signs it, and he serves as the agent who gives it to her.50
If [the husband] tells them: "All of you sign it," they must all sign it. If the husband counted the people - whether he counted all of them or merely some of them51 - and told them to sign it, it is considered as if he told all of them to sign it. The two who sign it at the outset act as witnesses,52 while the others [should sign it to complete] the stipulation [the husband] made.
Accordingly, if the remaining witnesses were unacceptable, or one signed it on the day the get was written and the others on subsequent days53 - even several days after [the get was written],54 the get is acceptable.55
If one of them died before signing it, the get is void.56If one of the first witnesses who signed it was unacceptable, the get is unacceptable, lest it be said that an unacceptable witness may sign other legal documents when many witnesses sign.57The only reason [our Sages] accepted [such signatures] with regard to aget signed by many witnesses is that the witnesses who observe the transfer are of fundamental importance.58
Halacha 28
Our Sages established the [following] rules with regard to a person who tells many people to write, sign, or bring a get for his wife.59 With regard to writing, he should tell them: "Any one of you may write a get for my wife." Similarly, with regard to bringing [the get], [he should say]: "Any one of you may bring...." With regard to signing, he should tell them: "Any pair of you should sign this get and give it to my wife."
Halacha 29
Why did our Sages state that the witnesses to a get should sign only in each other's presence?60 [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest a person tell many others: "All of you sign [as witnesses]." If it were possible for witnesses to sign outside the presence of the other witnesses, two witnesses might sign the get, and the woman might take it and think that it does not require any more witnesses, [when in fact] the condition that [the husband made] was not fulfilled.
Halacha 30
If [a man] tells three people, including a father and a son, "Two of you should write a get for my wife, sign it and give it to her," the get is acceptable whether the son signs with the other person or the father signs with the other person.61[The son may serve in this capacity] because a person may appoint a son as an agent instead of his father.
Halacha 31
When [a man] tells two [colleagues]: "Write [a get], sign it and give it to so and so to bring to my wife," or "...give it to [my] agent to bring to her," one of them should write it, and they should both sign it and give it to the agent. If they bring it to the woman themselves, the divorce is not effective, for they were not appointed as agents to effect the divorce.
What should they do [if in error they gave it to the woman]? They should take it back from her and give it to the agent, who should in turn give it back to the woman in their presence or in the presence of other [witnesses].
My teachers issued a ruling with regard to such a get that d oes not appear to be appropriate, because of a flaw that existed in the versions [of the Talmud] that they possessed.62
Halacha 32
[Our Sages ruled that] the status of a divorce is in doubt [in the following situation: A husband] tells a scribe: "Write me a get for my wife." [The scribe] wrote it and gave it to the husband, without this being observed by witnesses.63The husband took it, gave it to an agent,64 and told him: "Give this get to my wife in the presence of witnesses." The agent [carried out the instructions] and gave it to [the woman] in the presence of witnesses.
[The rationale is] that since he is only a single witness, an agent's statements would not be accepted [as grounds] to permit a woman who was [previously] forbidden to marry, except for the fact [that his statements are supported by] the written statements of the witnesses who signed the get. [For the witnesses' statements] are considered as if they were testimony given in court until [the husband] lodges a protest, as we have explained.65 If there are two witnesses who observed the husband giving the get to the agent and instructing him to use it for the divorce, the divorce is binding.66
Halacha 33
[When a husband] tells an agent: "Give this get to my wife in this and this place," the divorce is not effective if he gives it to her in another place.67 "...She is in this and this place," and the agent gave it to her in another place, [the get] is binding; he is merely pointing out the place.
Similarly, if he tells [the agent]: "Do not give it to her [anywhere] except in the house," and he gives it to her in the loft; "Do not give it to her except with your right hand," and he gives it to her with his left; "Give it to her on this and this day," and he gives it to her before that date; 68 the divorce is not effective. "Do not give it to her except on this and this day," the divorce is not effective if he gives it to the woman before or afterwards, for he indicated that he wanted theget to be given on that date. Similar rulings apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 34
Similarly, when a woman tells her agent: "Receive my get for me in this and this place," and he receives it for her in another place, the divorce is not effective. [When she tells him:] "Bring me my get in this and this place," the get is acceptable if he brings it to her in another place.69
Halacha 35
When [a man] tells an agent: "Bring this get to my wife," the agent may send theget with another person if he becomes ill or is otherwise prevented [from bringing it to her] by forces beyond his control.70 [This applies] regardless of whether he told him: "Bring it [to her]," or "You bring it [to her]."
If, however, [the husband] told [the agent]: "Take the following article from her and give her this get," the agent should not send the get via another individual.71 If [the agent] did send [the get] via another individual, and the woman came out to greet the agent and she gave him the article, and afterwards he gave her the get, the divorce is binding.72
Halacha 36
If the agent - i.e., [either] the first [or the second] agent - gave the woman theget first and then she gave him the article, the divorce is not effective. [The rationale is] that [the agent] violated the husband's instructions with regard to a matter which, in general, would cause people to object.73 For the husband told him: "Take the article first and then give her t he get," and he gave [the get] first and then took [the article].
Halacha 37
[If the husband] told the agent: "Give her the get and take this and this article from her," [the agent] should not send the get via another person, for [the principal] would not desire that his article be entrusted to a person [other than the one he appointed].
If, however, the agent sent it with another person, the divorce is binding. [This applies] regardless of whether she gave the article before [receiving the get] or afterwards.74
Halacha 38
[If the husband] gives an agent a get and tells him: "No one other than you should give it to her," the divorce is not effective, if the agent gives [the get] to another person who gives it to the woman.
Similarly, [if the husband] told the agent: "Do not give it to her yourself. Give it to so and so, and he will give it to her," the divorce is not effective if the first agent gives it to the woman. For he was not appointed as an agent to effect the divorce.
Halacha 39
[A husband] gave [an agent] a get and told him: "Bring this get to my wife."
The agent told him: "I do not know who she is."
The husband replied: "Give it to so and so. He knows who she is."
The [first] agent has not been appointed as an agent to effect the divorce.75 All he can do is give the get to the person w hom the husband designated. That person is the agent appointed to effect the divorce. He must bring [the get to the woman] or send it via another agent if he becomes ill or is prevented from doing so by forces beyond his control.
Halacha 40
When [a husband] gives an agent a get and tells him: "Do not give this get to my wife until after 30 days," [the agent] may send it to her via a second agent [whom he appoints] within the 30 days, if he becomes ill or is prevented from giving it to her by forces beyond his control.
[The rationale is that] even though at the time [he appoints the second agent] he is not charged with effecting the divorce, since he will function in that capacity after 30 days pass, he has the authority to appoint a second agent within the 30 days.76
Halacha 41
When does the above apply? When the husband was not in the same city as his wife, or he was divorcing her after consecration,77[but before the marriage bond has been consummated].
If, however, the marriage bond has been consummated, we suspect that perhaps the husband appeased her. Therefore, the agent should not appoint another agent within the 30 days unless the husband said: "I accept the word of my wife if she says that I did not appease her." After 30 days pass, [the agent] should give her the get. However, we suspect [that perhaps it was nullified], as explained,78 unless [the husband] said, "I accept the word of my wife if she says that I did not appease her."
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See the notes on Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
|
| 2. |
If the husband dies she is not divorced, because a divorce must take effect before death. If theget is destroyed, she is not divorced because it is the get that serves as the medium of divorce, and at the time when the get must take effect, it no longer exists.
|
| 3. |
The public domain was a marketplace with pillars on either side. At the side of the pillars, there was space that though ownerless, could be used to acquire property, because it was not common for people to walk in that space. (See Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:9.)
|
| 4. |
The Maggid Mishneh, the Kessef Mishneh and others contrast the Rambam's ruling here, that the divorce is not retroactively effective from the time the husband gave the get, to his ruling in Hilchot Mechirah 2:9. That source states that a sale can be effective when made with the stipulation that it take effect after 30 days, only when the stipulation is that it take effect retroactively. The Maggid Mishneh differentiates between the two instances, explaining that a sale requires an act of contract to effect a transfer, and that act took place when the sale was originally made, not 30 days afterwards. In contrast, with regard to a get, the fundamental aspect of the divorce is effected by the writing of the get.
|
| 5. |
Had the get been placed by the woman in the public domain itself, it would not be effective even if it existed when the time specified by the husband arrived. Since it left the woman's domain entirely, the giving of the get originally performed by the husband is no longer considered significant. And, as stated at the beginning of these laws, one of the requirements of a divorce is that the get be given to the woman by her husband.
|
| 6. |
I.e., in this instance as well, there is a resemblance to the laws of a conditional divorce. Nevertheless, since different wording is used, the laws vary.
|
| 7. |
Moreover, the action specified by the husband may be something that does not require anything to be done by his wife. For example, he may tell her that the divorce will take effect after the first rainfall (Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 3:3).
|
| 8. |
Chapter 8, Halachah 1. See the notes on that halachah.
|
| 9. |
Halachah 3. If the get is not in the woman's possession at this time, the divorce is not effective according to the Rambam. Nevertheless, other authorities have a different conception of these laws, and according to them, the status of the divorce would be doubtful (Maggid Mishneh; Beit Shmuel 146:3).
|
| 10. |
For their relations are considered adulterous.
|
| 11. |
For he did not preface his statements by saying: "This is your get," or "You are divorced...." Hence, he is not considered to have given the get for the sake of divorce. Although such an intent could be deduced from his words, since his statements were not explicit, they are of no consequence. Indeed, making such a statement is less effective than not saying anything at all (Maggid Mishneh; Kiryat Melech Rav).
|
| 12. |
I.e., he desires that the get not take effect until a specific time, but does not want the restrictions mentioned in the previous halachah to apply. This is not merely a theoretical situation. Such gittinwere given frequently in previous generations when a man undertook an overseas journey and wished to spare his wife from having to remain unmarried if he was killed, kidnapped by pirates or in other ways prevented from returning against his will.
|
| 13. |
Gittin 30a cites an example of a man who divorced his wife on condition that he not return within 30 days. A river washed away the bridge leading to his city. Although he stood on the river banks and called to his townsmen: "See, I have returned," our Sages ruled that he is not considered to have returned, and they considered the divorce binding.
|
| 14. |
According to Scriptural law, a person who is prevented from fulfilling a condition by forces beyond his control is not considered as having failed to fulfill it. Nevertheless, our Sages ruled that the laws of divorce are an exception to this principle, because modest women might presume that their husbands were prevented from fulfilling their condition by forces beyond their control and never remarry (Ketubot 2b).
The Maggid Mishneh quotes the opinion of Tosafot (Ketubot 2b) and others, who state that this principle applies only with regard to events beyond mortal control that one could possibly foresee - e.g., illness or flood. It does not apply with regard to events beyond a person's control that are totally unlikely - e.g., earthquakes. The Maggid Mishneh cites statements by the Rambam inHilchot Mechirah, Chapter 19, which indicate that he would also accept this restriction.
The Maggid Mishneh's premise is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 144:1). It appears that the determination of what is an event beyond a person's control that is totally unlikely is dependent on the sociological conditions of the age. For example, the Ramah rules that being held as a captive is not a totally unlikely occurrence.
|
| 15. |
As will be explained, this law applies when the husband stated "on condition that..." when giving the get.
|
| 16. |
Since ultimately the condition was fulfilled.
|
| 17. |
If he entered into privacy with her, the get would be nullified. See Chapter 3, Halachah 5, Chapter 8, Halachah 2.
|
| 18. |
In such an instance, if the woman were to say that she never agreed to her husband's spending more than 30 days away from her, the get would be effective after the condition is fulfilled.
|
| 19. |
The husband gave his wife the get because he was going away on a journey and knew that she would not desire to be alone. If he was able to appease her and she was willing to remain alone for 30 days, he is able to nullify the get. Usually, once a get is given "on condition that...," it cannot be nullified once it has been given. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the condition was made for the sake of the woman, if she is willing to forego seeing her husband, the husband may nullify theget (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 20. |
I.e., according to Scriptural law, since the condition was fulfilled, and there is no evidence that the couple resolved their differences, the get is binding. Our Sages, nevertheless, disqualified the getfor the reasons stated above.
|
| 21. |
Hence, the divorce is unacceptable.
|
| 22. |
And we assume that because of their familiarity, he knows how to appease her, and she is more willing to accept his overtures.
|
| 23. |
The Rambam's decision is based on his interpretation of Gittin 76b. The Ra'avad interprets that passage more stringently and requires the husband to have accepted his wife's statements as to whether or not he came as binding. Otherwise, we suspect that he came in secrecy. TheShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 144:7) follows the Rambam's view, but states that a priori, it is customary to include the condition mentioned by the Ra'avad.
|
| 24. |
If she desires to marry within the twelve months, she must undergo the rite of chalitzah first.
|
| 25. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 145:8) quotes the Rashba, who states that even if a sick person does not specify that he die from the illness afflicting him, we assume that this is his intent.
|
| 26. |
I.e., the advantage of such a get would be to free his wife of the obligation of yibbum or chalitzah. Similarly, the subsequent halachot refer to gittin given for this purpose.
|
| 27. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling. He maintains that the date of the get indicates that the husband desires that the get take effect retroactively. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer145:1) quotes the Rambam's view, but mentions a minority opinion that takes the Ra'avad's view into consideration.
|
| 28. |
The Hagahot Maimoniot quote Rabbenu Tam as stating that it is preferable for the person to say: "from the present time," rather than "from the present day," lest he die before the conclusion of the day. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 145:2) quotes this suggestion.
|
| 29. |
Therefore, if childless, she must perform the rite of chalitzah before marrying, and may not perform the rite of yibbum. As stated in Hilchot Ishut 18:25, such a woman is not entitled to receive support from her husband's estate after his death.
|
| 30. |
For the get does not become effective until the morning. Since he died beforehand, a get cannot be effective after death.
|
| 31. |
For a get given "on the condition that" becomes effective retroactively from the time it was originally given, once the condition is fulfilled.
|
| 32. |
A get given according to the rules of conditional agreements is not effective until the condition is fulfilled.
|
| 33. |
As stated in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:14, when a person who is mortally ill gives away all of his property as a present and then recovers, the present is automatically retracted, for we assume that his intent was solely to distribute his property after his death.
|
| 34. |
Thus, the two laws are in direct contradiction. A present given by a dying man does not take effect until after he dies, and a divorce that he grants cannot take effect after he dies.
|
| 35. |
For the condition that he stated was not fulfilled (Gittin 73a).
|
| 36. |
On the one hand, he did not arise from his sickbed. On the other hand, there is reason to assume that his intent was that he is giving the get on the condition that he die from the illness afflicting him, and this was not the case (Gittin 73a).
|
| 37. |
This applies even if he walks in the marketplace without any support. Since he did not regain his health entirely, it is necessary to determine whether or not he died from the first illness. Note the contrast to Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:26.
|
| 38. |
Note the Beit Shmuel 145:14, who states that, according to the Rambam, for the divorce to be effective the man must still be afflicted with the first illness when he dies. Note the contrast toHilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:27.
|
| 39. |
I.e., he has none of the privileges of a husband - e.g., he is not entitled to her earnings, he may not nullify her vows, and if he is a priest, he may not become impure because of her in the event of her death. With regard to paying for the woman's support, most authorities maintain that the husband is liable. There is no explicit statement from the Rambam regarding this issue.
|
| 40. |
In such an instance, we suspect that the couple may have engaged in marital relations, and that the husband nullified the get beforehand.
|
| 41. |
I.e., the requirement is not that the positive factor be stated first, but that it be stated before the negative factor. This is accomplished by restating the condition that would negate the get.
|
| 42. |
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that from his previous decisions, it appears that unless the man says that the get will take effect retroactively me'achshav, "from this time onward," the get is not effective, because it does not take effect until after the man's death. Apparently, the Rambam maintains that the restatement of the condition resolves that difficulty, but this concept is not accepted by many other authorities. When stating this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 145:5) quotes the Rambam's wording, but adds the word me'achshav.
|
| 43. |
I.e., the colleague was not appointed by the wife to serve as an agent to receive the get. The husband appointed him as her agent, because he felt that she would not desire to marry heryavam. According to Torah law, one may perform an action on a person's behalf without his knowledge if it is to his advantage - e.g., one may take possession of an ownerless object on behalf of a colleague without asking him. Hence, it is possible to assume that the agent can act on behalf of the woman without her knowledge (Yevamot 118b).
|
| 44. |
Because by writing it within this time, they deviated from the instructions with which they were charged (Gittin 76b).
|
| 45. |
I.e., although the wording of the Hebrew original could possibly be interpreted otherwise, the commentaries agree that the Rambam's intent is that the get may be written immediately after the time specified and should not be written after a prolonged period has elapsed from that time.
|
| 46. |
The get is unacceptable because the husband's words also imply a restriction, that the get should be written directly afterwards and not after a prolonged period. Indeed, for this reason, Rabbenu Nissim [and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 144:6)] rule that in such a situation, the status of the divorce is in doubt. In defense of the Rambam's ruling, the commentaries explain that even though the husband's intent may have been that the get be given immediately, since the wording he used could be interpreted to mean after a prolonged period, the get is acceptable according to Scriptural law.
|
| 47. |
The Rambam is referring to his statements in Chapter 8, Halachah 2. There, however, he uses the expression, "the status of the get is in doubt."
|
| 48. |
The commentaries question the Rambam's decision, explaining that although there is a possibility that the couple engaged in marital relations and the husband consecrated her at that time (see Chapter 10, Halachah 18), it is also possible that this did not take place. Indeed, in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, with reference to a get given by a husband after he entered into privacy with his wife, the Rambam rules that after the fact, the get is acceptable.
[It is possible to differentiate between the two instances, because in that halachah, the husband himself gave the woman the get. This is a greater indication that he did not nullify it (Maggid Mishneh). Even after that explanation, however, the Rambam's ruling in this halachah raises questions.]
When referring to this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 149:7) accepts the ruling that at the outset, the witnesses should not have such a get written, but follows the ruling of the Ramban and the Rashba, who maintain that if they had the get written and gave it to the woman, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
|
| 49. |
This is the ruling according to Scriptural law. See, however, Halachah 28.
|
| 50. |
There are many authorities who object to this ruling, maintaining that the scribe cannot sign as a witness to the get. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo states that even the Rambam agrees that at the outset, a scribe should not sign as a witness. After the fact, however, the Rambam maintains that his signature does not disqualify the get. In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer130:18), Rav Yosef Karo writes: "One should be careful not to have the scribe sign as a witness, because there are authorities who disqualify this."
|
| 51. |
I.e., speaking to the people, he said: "One, two, three, four, write a get..." (Chelkat Mechokek120:18).
|
| 52. |
According to the Rambam, it appears that not only must the signatures of the acceptable witnesses be first chronologically, but they must also appear first on the get. Other authorities do not make this requirement and maintain that it is only chronological precedence that is significant (Beit Shmuel 120:14).
|
| 53. |
The two witnesses whose signatures are required must sign the get on the day that it was written (Chapter 1, Halachah 25).
|
| 54. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 120:9) states that they may sign the get to fulfill the condition even after it was given to the woman. The Ramah adds that this may be done even after she has remarried.
|
| 55. |
Tosafot and subsequent Ashkenazic authorities differ and maintain that for the get to be valid, all the witnesses must be acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 120:10) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. The Ramah follows Tosafot's ruling.
|
| 56. |
Because the instructions that the husband gave concerning the get were not fulfilled.
|
| 57. |
See Hilchot Edut 5:6-7, which states that if persons who are unacceptable as witnesses signed a legal document with the intent of serving as witnesses, the document is disqualified, even if two acceptable witnesses signed it first. If, however, the persons who were unacceptable did not sign the document with the intent of serving as witnesses, the document is acceptable, even if the signature of the unacceptable person appears first.
|
| 58. |
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 15. With regard to other legal documents, the witnesses who sign the contract are of paramount importance, and they must all therefore be acceptable. The witnesses who observe its transfer are less significant. But with regard to gittin, it is the witnesses who observe the transfer who are of primary importance. Therefore, if the initial two signatures to the get are acceptable, we are not concerned with those who sign subsequently (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh, Hilchot Edut).
|
| 59. |
These rules were instituted lest the the husband tell a group of people that they all should write, sign or bring a get, and they not appreciate that they were all charged with this responsibility. Lest some of them fail to discharge this responsibility and thus cause the get to be void, our Sages required that whenever many people are instructed to be involved in a get, they all must take full participatory roles.
|
| 60. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 24, based on Gittin 10b. If the witnesses do not sign in each other's presence, the get is unacceptable (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 130:13).
|
| 61. |
The father and the son may not both sign as witnesses, because witnesses may not be related to each other.
|
| 62. |
The Rambam is referring to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Gittin 63b. Significantly, the standard published texts of the Talmud available to us follow Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's version. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:36) follows Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's conception and rules that the status of the divorce is in doubt. (See the notes of the Beit Shmuel 141:99, which explain the Rambam's interpretation.)
|
| 63. |
And thus the get is not signed by witnesses.
|
| 64. |
According to the Rambam (Chapter 6, Halachah 4), the appointment of such an agent need not be observed by witnesses.
|
| 65. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 24. Note the question of the Beit Shmuel 141:17, who asks why the Rambam distinguishes between this instance and an agent charged with consecrating a woman, whose word is accepted, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:15. The Beit Shmuel explains that the fact that the get is not signed detracts from the agent's credibility. For although a get is acceptable when it has not been signed, this is not desirable. Hence, we are more suspicious of the possibility of forgery.
|
| 66. |
As long as there are witnesses who observe the transfer of the get, the agent's actions are considered to be equivalent to those of the husband himself. Hence, just as a get given by the husband is acceptable after the fact if its transfer was observed by witnesses, even if the get was not signed, this same ruling applies when his agent gives the get.
|
| 67. |
For the wording the husband used implies that he is stipulating that the get must be given in that place.
|
| 68. |
From the contrast with the following clause, the Beit Shmuel 141:63 and others rule that, in this instance, the get is binding if it is given after that date. Note, however, the Mishneh LaMelech who differs and rules that the divorce is disqualified by the Sages.
|
| 69. |
By accepting the get from the agent in the place she receives it, the woman shows that she is not particular about where she receives it (Maggid Mishneh in his gloss on Chapter 6, Halachah 4). The Rambam's ruling indicates a slight textual difference from the popular version of Gittin 6:3, the source for this halachah. There is, however, no difference in principle between them.
|
| 70. |
If, however, the agent is not prevented from discharging his agency, he should not charge another person with that responsibility. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 4 and notes.)
|
| 71. |
For it is likely that the principal would not desire that anyone other than the person he designated be given his article to guard. Rashi (Gittin 29a) offers a different interpretation. (See Beit Shmuel141:65.)
|
| 72. |
Since the second agent did not deviate from the husband's instructions, the get is acceptable, despite the fact that a person other than the one appointed by the husband gave the get to the woman.
Rabbenu Asher rules that even if the second agent takes the article before giving the woman theget, the divorce is not effective. Although Rabbenu Asher's ruling is also mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:51) appears to follow the Rambam's decision.
|
| 73. |
I.e., the husband was in effect saying, "Make sure you get the article before you give her the get." Since the agent did not fulfill these instructions, the divorce is not valid. See the Beit Shmuel141:66, who quotes opinions that state that if the husband's wording does not indicate that he definitely wants the agent to secure possession of the article before giving the get, the divorce is binding.
|
| 74. |
For in this instance, there is no obvious advantage to the principal in having the agent give the getfirst.
As mentioned in the Maggid Mishneh, the Ramban differs and maintains that for the divorce to be binding the woman must give the agent the article first.
|
| 75. |
According to the Rambam, if the first agent gives the woman the get, the divorce is not effective. As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 31, other opinions differ and maintain that in this instance, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
|
| 76. |
Needless to say, the second agent should not give the woman the get until the original 30 days have passed.
Rav Meir HaLevi states that we suspect that the first agent will not convey these instructions clearly to the second agent. Therefore, the first agent should entrust the get to the court, which will appoint a second agent after the 30 days have passed. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:37) mentions this view, it appears that the Rambam's view is favored.
|
| 77. |
See Halachot 10 and 11.
|
| 78. |
See Halachah 9.
|
Mikvaot - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When three lugim of drawn water fall into a mikveh - whether from one k'li or from two or three keilim - they can be combined to reach a quantity that disqualifies the mikveh, provided the water begins descending from the second before it concludes descending from the first. If descends from four keilim, the water from them is not combined.
When does the above apply? When one did not intend to increase the amount of water in the mikveh. If, however, one intended to increase the amount of water in the mikveh, even if a dinar-size measure was added each year, they are all combined to reach the sum of three lugim, whether the drawn water was present there before the acceptable water, the acceptable water was present there before the drawn water, or they both fell into the mikveh at the same time. Since three lugim of water fell into 40 se'ah combining with the acceptable water to reach that amount or into less than 40 se'ah of water, the entire amount is invalidated and considered as drawn.
Halacha 2
When two people each poured a log and a half into a mikveh, or one wrung out his garment and lifted it up, causing the water it contained to fall from several places, it invalidates a mikveh. A similar ruling applies when one pours from a distributor that causes water to pour from several places at the same time.
Halacha 3
When one immerses a pillow or a cushion of leather into a mikveh that has exactly 40 se'ah, when he lifts their edges out of the water, the water inside of them is considered as drawn water.
What should he do? He should immerse them and lift them up by their ends. With regard to a basket and a sack, he should immerse them and lift them up in the ordinary manner without showing any concern.
Halacha 4
The following law applies to a mikveh that had three pockets of drawn water with a log in each of the pockets and then acceptable water fell into it. If it is known that 40 se'ah of acceptable water fell into it before the water reached the third pocket, it is acceptable, If not, it is disqualified.
Halacha 5
When there are two mikveot, neither containing 40 se'ah, a log and a half fell into each one of them, and then the mikveot became mixed together, they are acceptable. The rationale is that neither one of them had been designated as unacceptable.
If, by contrast, three lugim of drawn water fell into a mikveh that does not contain 40 se'ah [of acceptable water and afterwards, it was divided into two, even though enough acceptable water was added to each one to constitute an acceptable mikveh, they are invalid. The rationale is that whenever a mikveh is disqualified, all of its contents are considered as drawn water. It is as if all of the water had been drawn with a container.
Halacha 6
When a cistern is filled with drawn water and a canal of rainwater flows into it and out of it, it is still considered as unacceptable until it can be calculated that not even three lugim of the drawn water that originally was in the cistern remain.
When three lugim of unacceptable water fall into a mikveh containing less than 40 se'ah of acceptable water, all of its contents are disqualified. Even if afterwards, he added enough acceptable water until the measure of 40 se'ah is reached, the mikveh remains invalid until all the water that was contained within it flows out and less than three lugim of the drawn water remain.
What is implied? A mikveh contains 20 se'ah of rainwater and a se'ah of drawn water fell into it. Afterwards, more acceptable water was added to it. It remains unacceptable until one knows that the 20 se'ah it originally contained and more than five and a quarter kabbin of the added water flowed out and less than three lugim of the entire quantity remain. Similarly, if one made a mikveh that contains 40 se'ah of acceptable water and joined it to this invalid mikveh, the acceptable water purifies the unacceptable water.
Halacha 7
If one was moving mud from the bottom of the mikveh to the sides and, as a result, three lugim of water flowed into the mikveh, it remains acceptable. If one was removing the mud and lifted it up by hand, separating it from the mikvehand placing it on the mikveh's sides and three lugim flowed into the mikveh from it, they disqualify it.
Halacha 8
When a legion is passing from one place to another - or similarly, an animal is passing from one place to another - and three lugim of water was splashed into a mikveh by their hands and feet, it is acceptable. Moreover, even if they made a mikveh in this manner initially, it is acceptable.
Halacha 9
When a mikveh does not contain 40 se'ah and less than three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is acceptable with regard to challah andterumah and one may use it for the ritual washing of hands. It is, however, invalid to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptablemikveh. If rainwater descended upon it to the extent that the rainwater constituted the majority of the mixture, the mixture is acceptable to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh.
When three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is unacceptable for challah and terumah. One may not use it for the ritual washing of hands, nor may it be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. If rainwater descended upon it to the extent that the rainwater constituted the majority of the mixture, the mixture is acceptable with regard to challah andterumah and one may use it for the ritual washing of hands. It is, however, invalid to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptablemikveh until all of the original water that became considered as drawn flowed out and less than three lugim of it remained.
Similarly, if there was a mikveh that contained only a dinar-size measure less than 40 se'ah and three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is unacceptable for challah and terumah. One may not use it for the ritual washing of hands, nor may it be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. If less than three lugim of water fell into it - even if the water was all impure - and then a dinar-size measure of rainwater fell into it, causing it comprise a complete measure of 40 se'ah, it is acceptable. Just as it is considered as pure with regard to immersion, it is considered pure in every respect.
Mikvaot - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Whenever water passes over keilim that contain a receptacle or water falls into them, it is considered as drawn water and disqualifies a mikveh, provided that the receptacle was made to serve that purpose. Even containers that are not susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., stone containers and containers made from earth, disqualify water.
Halacha 2
Whenever a k'li was not made with the intent that it serve as a receptacle, even though it does serve as a receptacle, the water it contains does not disqualify amikveh, for example, large pipes through which water flows. Even though they are wide in the middle and serve as receptacles, the water they contain does not disqualify a mikveh. This applies whether they were made of metal or of earthenware.
Halacha 3
The water contained in a trough in a stone does not disqualify a mikveh, because the trough is not a k'li. If, however, one joins a k'li to a stone, water contained in it disqualifies a mikveh, even if it was joined with cement. If one made a hole from below or one as wide as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch in the trough from the side, it is acceptable and water contained within it does not disqualify a mikveh.
Halacha 4
When a person takes a large barrel or a large kneading trough and makes a hole large enough to purify it from susceptibility to impurity, and then permanently affixes it within the ground, making it into a mikveh, it is acceptable. Similarly, if one plugged the hole with lime and with building materials, this does not disqualify the barrel and the water collected within forms an acceptable mikveh. If one plugged it with lime or with gypsum, the water it contains makes a mikveh unacceptable, unless it was permanently affixed to the earth or made part of a building. If it was taken and placed on the surface of the earth or on lime and mud was smeared on its sides, it is acceptable to use as a mikveh.
Halacha 5
The following laws apply when one places a tablet under a drainage pipe and water flows over it into a mikveh. If the tablet had borders on its sides, this water would disqualify the mikveh. If not, it does not disqualify it. If one stood the tablet upright on its point, at an angle under the drainage pipe to wash it, even though it has borders, it does not disqualify the water, because in this position, it was not intended to serve as a receptacle.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when one carves a place in a pipe for pebbles that are carried with the water to collect so that they will not descend together with the water. If it was a wooden pipe and he carved out even the slightest hollow, it disqualifies the water, because all of the water passes through a utensil that was made to serve as a receptacle. This applies even if one permanently affixed the pipe to the earth after he carved out the hollow. The rationale is that the pipe had already been considered as a k'li when it was unattached. If, by contrast, it was permanently affixed to the earth and then he carved out the receptacle, it does not disqualify the water. If the pipe was made from earthenware, it does not disqualify the water unless the hollow is large enough to contain a revi'it.
Even though the hollow in the pipe becomes filled with the pebbles that dribble into it, it remains a disqualifying factor. It is not considered as having been stopped up. If earth or pebbles descended into the hollow and stopped it up, because they were compressed there, the water is acceptable.
Halacha 7
When either a sponge or a bucket that contains three lugim of drawn water falls into a mikveh, it does not disqualify it. For it was said only that three lugim of water that fall into it disqualify it, not a container into which drawn water had fallen.
Halacha 8
When there is a closet or a chest in the sea, one may not immerse in them unless they have a hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If there was a sack or a basket in the sea, one may immerse in them. Similarly, if one places a sack or a basket under a drainage pipe, the water that flows through them does not disqualify a mikveh.
Halacha 9
When one immersed keilim over an impure base for a container that was placed inside a mikveh, even though the edge of the base extends above the water, the keilim are purified from their impurity. If, however, one lifts them up from the water into the inner space of the base, the water that is on the keilimcontracts impurity because it is within the inner space of the base. The water in turn imparts impurity to the keilim.
Similarly, if a spring emerges from under an earthenware oven and a person descended and immersed in it, he is pure, but his hands contract impurity from the inner space of the oven unless the water extends above the oven for at least the height of his hands. Thus when he immersed, his hands will be above the oven. The difficulties arise, because earthenware keilim do not regain purity through immersion in a mikveh, as we explained.
Halacha 10
When a barrel full of water falls into a sea, even into the Mediterranean Sea, one who immerses there is not considered to have immersed. The rationale is that it is impossible that there will not be three lugim of water from the barrel in one place. If a loaf of terumah falls there, it becomes impure. It contracts impurity due to contact with drawn water, for the water is standing there. If such a situation would take place in a river or the like, one would be able to immerse there, since it flows.
Halacha 11
When there was a pool of drawn water next to a mikveh that contains less than 40 seah, even though it is touching the water of the mikveh, it does not disqualify it, because it is like a mikveh next to a mikveh. If the pool of the drawn water was in the middle of the mikveh, it disqualifies it.
Halacha 12
The following rule applies when there are two pools of water, one above the other, they are separated by a wall, and the upper one is filled with acceptable water, but the lower one is filled with drawn water, and there is a hole in the wall between the upper pool and the lower one. If there are three lugim of drawn water opposite the hole, the upper pool is disqualified. The rationale is that it is considered as if the hole was in the center of the upper pool, not at its side.
Halacha 13
How large must the hole be for there to be three lugim there? Everything depends on the quantity of water contained in the pool. If the lower pool contains 40 se'ah, the hole must be 1/320th of the pool. If the pool contains 20se'ah, the hole must be 1/160th of the pool. Continue calculating according to this ratio for other amounts. A se'ah is six kabbin, a kab is four lugim, and a logis the size of six eggs.
Halacha 14
The following laws apply when there are three mikveot, each containing exactly 20 se'ah, next to each other, and one [of those on the side contained drawn water. If three people descended and immersed themselves, causing all the water to rise and mix on the floor outside the mikveot, both the mikveot and the people who immersed themselves are pure. The rationale is that the entire amount totaled 60 se'ah, of which 40 se'ah of acceptable water came from two pools located next to each other. And drawn water does not disqualify a mikvehthat contains 40 se'ah, as we explained.
If the pool containing drawn water was in the middle and they descended and immersed themselves, causing the water to rise and the mikveot thus to become joined, the status of the mikveot is the same as it was previously and those who immersed themselves are impure as they were previously. The rationale is that 40 se'ah of acceptable water did not mix together, because their pools were not located next to each other, for the pool of drawn water separates between them.
Mikvaot - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
A mikveh is not disqualified, neither because of a change of its water's taste, nor a change of its smell, only because its color changes. Any substance that may not be used to constitute a mikveh initially disqualifies one, if it causes its color to change.
What is implied? Wine, milk, blood, or other liquids that are classified as fruit juices do not disqualify a mikveh if three lugim of them fall into it, because it was only said that three lugim of drawn water disqualify a mikveh. They do, however, disqualify it if they change the color of its water.
Even when a mikveh contains 100 se'ah and a log of wine or fruit juice falls into it and changes its color, it is unacceptable. Similarly, if a mikveh contains 20se'ah or less of acceptable water and a se'ah of wine or fruit juice fell into it without changing its color, the water is acceptable as it was beforehand. These'ah of wine or fruit juice, however, is not counted in the measure of themikveh. If another 20 se'ah of acceptable water were added to the original 20, it is an acceptable mikveh.
Halacha 2
There are substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it; others that disqualify it and do not cause it to be considered acceptable, and others that neither cause it to be acceptable nor disqualify it.
Halacha 3
These are the substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it: snow, hail, sleet, ice, salt, and flowing mud. What is implied? When a mikveh contains 39 se'ah of water and a se'ah of one of these substances falls into it, the mikveh is acceptable and complete. Thus they cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it.
Even if one brought 40 se'ah of snow initially and placed them in a cavity and crushed it there, the mikveh is complete and acceptable.
Halacha 4
These are the substances that disqualify a mikveh and never cause it to be considered acceptable: drawn water, whether pure or impure, water that was used for pickling, water that was used for cooking, a mixture of water and grape dregs before they become vinegar, and beer.
What is implied? When a mikveh contains 40 se'ah minus the weight of a dinarand the weight of a dinar of one of these liquids falls into it, it is not included in the measure of a mikveh and does not complete it. If three lugim of one of these liquids falls into a mikveh, it disqualifies it.
Halacha 5
These are the substances that neither disqualify a mikveh, nor cause it to be considered acceptable: other liquids, fruit juice, fish brine, fish oil, and a mixture of water and grape dregs that became vinegar.
What is implied? If there was a mikveh that contained 39 se'ah and a se'ah of these liquids fell into it, it does not cause it to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the water the mikveh contains is acceptable as it was beforehand, for these liquids disqualify a mikveh only if they change its color, as explained.
Halacha 6
There are times when the latter liquids cause a mikveh to be considered as acceptable. What is implied? A mikveh contained 40 se'ah, a se'ah of these liquids fell in, and then a se'ah was removed from the mikveh's waters. The 40se'ah that remain still constitute an acceptable mikveh.
Halacha 7
When one washed baskets used to collect olives or grapes in a mikveh, causing the water's color to change, it is acceptable.
Halacha 8
Water of dyes disqualify a mikveh if three lugim fall in, but do not disqualify it because they changed its color.
Halacha 9
When wine, black fluid from olives, or other fruit juices fall into a mikveh and change the color of its water, disqualifying it, how can it be rectified? If themikveh contains less than 40 se'ah, one should wait until rain descends and changes its color back to water's natural color. If the mikveh contains 40 se'ahof acceptable water, one may fill buckets and pour water into it until its color reverts to water's natural color.
If wine, the black fluid from olives, or the like falls into a mikveh and changes the color of some of its water, if it does not have 40 se'ah of water whose color has not changed, one should not immerse in it. Even if it contains 40 se'ah, if one immerses in a place whose color has changed, his immersion is invalid. Even if a barrel of wine was broken and fell into the Mediterranean Sea and the color of the water in that place is the color of wine, one who immerses in that place is not considered to have immersed.
Halacha 10
When even a dinar-sized portion of wine fell into three lugim of drawn water and change their color, so that they are all the color of wine and then they fell into amikveh they do not disqualify it, unless they change its color.
Halacha 11
When there are three lugim minus a dinar-sized portion of water and milk or fruit juice falls into the water, but its color remains that of water, it does not disqualify a mikveh if it falls into it. A mikveh is not disqualified unless threelugim of drawn water fall into it that were not mixed with any other liquid or with fruit juice.
Halacha 12
When the color of a mikveh changes on its own accord without anything falling into it, it is acceptable. It is only disqualified if its color changed due to another liquid.
• Tuesday, Menachem Av 26, 5775 · 11 August 2015
"Today's Day"
Friday Menachem Av 26 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Re'ei, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 97 to end.
Tanya: Though this (p. 429) ...of the "lot." (p. 429).
From my father's sichot: In the chassidic "exodus from Egypt" there is the Mitzva of recounting the "Exodus" verbally, to tell chassidic stories and to "sense" and apprehend the story in one's deepest inwardness. One must know that every narrative is guidance for living. Every story must bring forth (in the listener) a fine character trait, an inner enthusiasm for hidur mitzva,1and should enable the listener to sense the "ways of pleasantness" of chassidic teachings.
FOOTNOTES
1. Performing the mitzva with "beauty," beyond the minimal obligation.
Daily Thought:
Earned Living
All that can be cherished from this world,
All that makes life worth living,
Is that which is mined from its bowels through your own toil,
Fashioned from its clay by your own craft,
Fired in the kiln of your own heart.
That for which you bruised your hands and wearied your limbs,
For which you beat back the beast inside you,
For which you defied a mocking world.
Oh, how precious, how resplendent a feast,
a life forged by the hands of its own master!
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment