| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Friday, 27 Kislev, 5778 · December 15, 2017 - Chanukah Day 3Menorah Lighting
Please set your location to view Menorah lighting times ––:––
Candle Lighting
Light Shabbat Candles before sunset ––:––
Torah Reading:
Chanukah 3: Numbers 7:24-35
Chanukah 3: Numbers 7:24 On the third day Eli’av the son of Helon, leader of Z’vulun, presented his offering. 25 He offered one silver dish weighing 130 shekels [three-and-a-quarter pounds] and one silver basin of seventy shekels (using the sanctuary shekel) [one-and-three-quarters pounds], both full of fine flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering; 26 one gold pan of ten shekels [one-quarter pound], full of incense; 27 one young bull, one ram, one male lamb in its first year as a burnt offering, 28 one male goat as a sin offering, 29 and, for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Eli’av the son of Helon.
30 On the fourth day was Elitzur the son of Sh’de’ur, leader of the descendants of Re’uven. 31 He offered one silver dish weighing 130 shekels [three-and-a-quarter pounds] and one silver basin of seventy shekels (using the sanctuary shekel) [one-and-three-quarters pounds], both full of fine flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering; 32 one gold pan of ten shekels [one-quarter pound], full of incense; 33 one young bull, one ram, one male lamb in its first year as a burnt offering, 34 one male goat as a sin offering, 35 and, for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur the son of Sh’de’ur.
---
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Kindle Four Chanukah Lights before sunsetIn commemorartion of the miracle of Chanukah (see "Today in Jewish History" for Kislev 25) we kindle the Chanukah lights -- oil lamps or candles -- each evening of the eight-day festival, increasing the number of lights each evening. For tonight, we kindle four lights. (In the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall; this evening, then, commences the 4th day of Chanukah).
IMPORTANT: Because of the prohibition to kindle fire on Shabbat, the first Chanukah light must be lit before lighting the Shabbat candles, and should contain enough oil (or the candle be big enough) to burn until 30 minutes after nightfall.
For a more detailed guide to Chanukah lighting click here. For text and audio of the blessings recited before lighting, click here.
Additional Chanukah observances and customs are listed below:
• Hallel & Al HaNissim
Special prayers of thanksgiving -- Hallel (in its full version) and Al HaNissim -- are added to the daily prayers and Grace After Meals on all eight days of Chanukah. Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted for the duration of trhe festival.
• Latkes, Sufganiot & Dairy Foods
On Chanukah we eat foods fried in oil -- such as latkes (potato cakes) and sufganiot(doughnuts) -- in commemoration of the miracle of the oil.
It is also customary to eat dairy foods in commemoration of Judith's heroic deed.
• Dreidel
It is customary to play dreidel -- a game played with a spinning top inscribed with the Hebrew letters Nun, Gimmel, Hei and Shin, which spell the phrase Nes Gadol Hayah Sham, "a great miracle happened there." (It is said that when the Greeks forbade the study of Torah, Jewish children continued the study with their teachers in caves and cellars; when the agents of the king were seen approaching, the children would hide their scrolls and start to play with spinning tops...)
Links: About the dreidel
• Chanukah Gelt
It is an age-old custom to distribute gifts of Chanukah gelt ("Chanukah money") to children on Chanukah. (It was the custom of the rebbes of Chabad-Lubavitch to give Chanukah gelt to their children and other family members on the fourth or fifth night of Chanukah; more recently, however, the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged the giving of Chanukah gelt every day of the festival -- except for Shabbat, when handling money is forbidden.)
Today in Jewish History:
• Flood rains cease (2105 BCE)
The forty days and nights of rainfall which covered the face of earth with water in Noah's time ended on Kislev 27 of the year 1656 from creation (2105 BCE. The flood itself lasted a full year, as related in Genesis 6-8).
Links: Chronology of the Flood; The Torah's account (Parshat Noach); The 40-Day Mikvah
• 3rd Day of Chanukah Miracle (139 BCE)
On the 25th of Kislev in the year 3622 from creation, the Maccabees liberated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, after defeating the vastly more numerous and powerful armies of the Syrian-Greek king Antiochus IV, who had tried to forcefully uproot the beliefs and practices of Judaism from the people of Israel. The victorious Jews repaired, cleansed and rededicated the Temple to the service of G-d. But all the Temple's oil had been defiled by the pagan invaders; when the Jews sought to light the Temple's menorah (candelabra), they found only one small cruse of ritually pure olive oil. Miraculously, the one-day supply burned for eight days, until new, pure oil could be obtained. In commemoration, the Sages instituted the 8-day festival of Chanukah, on which lights are kindled nightly to recall and publicize the miracle.
Link: The Story of Chanukah
• Passing of R. Chaim of Tchernovitz (1817)
Rabbi Chaim of Tchernovitz (1760-1817) was a disciple of the Maggid of Mezritch and of Rabbi Yechiel Michel of Zlotchov. He authored Be'er Mayim Chayim ("Well of Living Waters"), a commentary on Torah. Rabbi Chaim passed away on the 3rd day of Chanukah.
Link: More on Rabbi Chaim of Tchernovitz
• 2nd liberation of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1800)
Two years after his arrest and liberation in 1798 (see entries for "Kislev 19" and here), Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Chabad, 1745-1812) was arrested a second time; again, the charges were that his teachings undermined the imperial authority of the Czar. His second incarceration was less severe than the first; yet Chassidim mark the anniversary of his release on the third day of Chanukah with farbrengens (Chassidic gatherings) and the study of his teachings.
According to other versions of the story, the liberation occurred on the fifth day of Chanukah. Apparently the liberation happened in two stages.
Daily Quote: You have a cup full of oil in your hand; if a drop of water falls into it, and corresponding drop of oil spills out. In the same way, if a word of Torah enters your heart, and word of mockery correspondingly exits from it; if a word of mockery enters your heart, a word of Torah exits from it (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Mikeitz, 6th Portion Genesis 43:16-43:29 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Genesis Chapter 43
16[When] Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the overseer of his house, "Bring the men into the house and [give orders] to slaughter an animal and to prepare, for the men will eat with me at lunch." טזוַיַּ֨רְא יוֹסֵ֣ף אִתָּם֘ אֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לַֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־בֵּית֔וֹ הָבֵ֥א אֶת־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים הַבָּ֑יְתָה וּטְבֹ֤חַ טֶ֨בַח֙ וְהָכֵ֔ן כִּ֥י אִתִּ֛י יֹֽאכְל֥וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בַּצָּֽהֳרָֽיִם:
and [give orders] to slaughter an animal and to prepare: Heb. וּטְבֹח ַטֶבַח וְהָכֵן, like וְלִטְבֹּח ַטֶבַח וּלְהָכֵן, and טְבֹחַ is not the imperative, for [if so,] he would have said וּטְבַח
וטבוח טבח והכן: כמו ולטבוח טבח ולהכן, ואין טבוח לשון צווי שהיה לו לומר וטבח:
at lunch: Heb. בָּצָּהֲרָיִם This is translated [by the targumim] as בְּשֵׁירוּתָא, an Aramaic term denoting the first meal of the day. In Old French disner , lunch. There are many [examples of this word] in the Talmud:“he threw his meal (שֵׁירוּתֵיהּ) to a dog” (Ta’anith 11b);“he cut [the bread] for the entire meal (שֵׁירוּתָא)” (Ber. 39b), but every [other] translation of צָהֳרַיִם is טִהִרָא.
בצהרים: זה מתורגם בשירותא, שהוא לשון סעודה ראשונה בלשון ארמי, ובלע"ז דישני"ר [ארוחת צהריים], ויש הרבה בתלמוד (תענית יא ב) שדא לכלבא שירותיה, (ברכות לט ב) בצע אכולא שירותא. אבל כל תרגום של צהרים טיהרא:
17And the man did as Joseph had said, and the man brought the men into Joseph's house. יזוַיַּ֣עַשׂ הָאִ֔ישׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָמַ֣ר יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיָּבֵ֥א הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בֵּ֥יתָה יוֹסֵֽף:
18Now the men were frightened because they had been brought into Joseph's house, and they said, "On account of the money that came back in our sacks at first, we are brought, to roll upon us and to fall upon us and to take us as slaves and our donkeys [as well]." יחוַיִּֽירְא֣וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֗ים כִּ֣י הֽוּבְאוּ֘ בֵּ֣ית יוֹסֵף֒ וַיֹּֽאמְר֗וּ עַל־דְּבַ֤ר הַכֶּ֨סֶף֙ הַשָּׁ֤ב בְּאַמְתְּחֹתֵ֨ינוּ֙ בַּתְּחִלָּ֔ה אֲנַ֖חְנוּ מֽוּבָאִ֑ים לְהִתְגֹּלֵ֤ל עָלֵ֨ינוּ֙ וּלְהִתְנַפֵּ֣ל עָלֵ֔ינוּ וְלָקַ֧חַת אֹתָ֛נוּ לַֽעֲבָדִ֖ים וְאֶת־חֲמֹרֵֽינוּ:
Now the men were frightened: Heb. וַיִירְאוּ It is written with two“yuds,” and is translated וּדְחִילוּ,“were frightened.”
וייראו האנשים: כתוב בשני יודי"ן ותרגומו ודחילו:
because they had been brought into Joseph’s house: And it was not customary for others who came to purchase grain to lodge in Joseph’s house, but in the inns in the city. So they were frightened that this was [done] only [in order] to put them in prison.
כי הובאו בית יוסף: ואין דרך שאר הבאים לשבור בר ללון בבית יוסף, כי אם בפונדקאות שבעיר. וייראו שאין זה אלא לאספם אל משמר:
we are brought: into this house.
אנחנו מובאים: אל תוך הבית הזה:
to roll upon us: Heb. לְהִתְגֹלֵל עָלֵינוּ So that the fabricated accusation regarding the money will roll upon us and fall upon us, [“Rolling” denotes the plot, and“falling” the ultimate attack.] Onkelos, however, rendered וּלְהִתְנַפֵּל עָלֵינוּ as וּלְאִסְתְּקָפָא עִלָנָא, which is an expression denoting“fabricating false accusations,” just as the Targum renders עִלִילֹת דְּבָרִים as“and he makes a false accusation against her” (Deut. 22:14) [with the words] תַּסְקוּפֵי מִלִין He (Onkelos) does not translate it literally to conform to the language of the verse. But לְהִתְגֹלֵל, which he (Onkelos) renders לְאִתְרַבְרְבָא, “to aggrandize himself,” is an expression derived from“the golden bowl (גֻלַת)” (Eccl. 12:6);“And Huzzab the queen (גֻלְתָה) was carried away” (Nahum 2:8), which denotes royalty.
להתגולל: להיות מתגלגלת עלינו עלילת הכסף ולהיותה נופלת עלינו. ואונקלוס שתרגם ולאסתקפא עלנא, הוא לשון להתעולל, כדמתרגמינן (דברים כב יד) עלילת דברים תסקופי מילין, ולא תרגמו אחר לשון המקרא, ולהתגלל שתרגם לאתרברבא הוא לשון (קהלת יב ו) גלת הזהב, (נחום ב ח) והצב גלתה העלתה, שהוא לשון מלכות:
19So they drew near the man who was over Joseph's house, and they spoke to him at the entrance of the house. יטוַיִּגְּשׁוּ֙ אֶל־הָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־בֵּ֣ית יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְדַבְּר֥וּ אֵלָ֖יו פֶּ֥תַח הַבָּֽיִת:
20And they said, "Please, my lord, we came down at first to purchase food. כוַיֹּֽאמְר֖וּ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִ֑י יָרֹ֥ד יָרַ֛דְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּ֖ה לִשְׁבָּר־אֹֽכֶל:
Please, my lord: Heb. בִּי, an expression of entreaty and supplication, in Aramaic: בָּיָיא בָּיָיא. Rashi bases this translation on Onkelos.
בי א-דני: לשון בעיא ותחנונים הוא, ובלשון ארמי בייא בייא:
we came down: Heb. יָרֹד יָרַדְנוּ. This is a degradation for us. We were accustomed to sustaining others, but now we must rely on you. — [from Gen. Rabbah 92:3]
ירד ירדנו: ירידה היא לנו, רגילים היינו לפרנס אחרים, עכשיו אנו צריכים לך:
21And it came to pass when we came to the lodging place that we opened our sacks, and behold! each man's money was in the mouth of his sack, and we returned it in our hand[s]. כאוַיְהִ֞י כִּי־בָ֣אנוּ אֶל־הַמָּל֗וֹן וַנִּפְתְּחָה֙ אֶת־אַמְתְּחֹתֵ֔ינוּ וְהִנֵּ֤ה כֶֽסֶף־אִישׁ֙ בְּפִ֣י אַמְתַּחְתּ֔וֹ כַּסְפֵּ֖נוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל֑וֹ וַנָּ֥שֶׁב אֹת֖וֹ בְּיָדֵֽנוּ:
22And we brought down other money in our hand[s] to purchase food. We do not know who put our money into our sacks." כבוְכֶ֧סֶף אַחֵ֛ר הוֹרַ֥דְנוּ בְיָדֵ֖נוּ לִשְׁבָּר־אֹ֑כֶל לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְנוּ מִי־שָׂ֥ם כַּסְפֵּ֖נוּ בְּאַמְתְּחֹתֵֽינוּ:
23And he said, "Peace to you; fear not. Your God and the God of your father gave you a treasure in your sacks; your money came to me." And he brought Simeon out to them. כגוַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ שָׁל֨וֹם לָכֶ֜ם אַל־תִּירָ֗אוּ אֱלֹ֨הֵיכֶ֜ם וֵֽאלֹהֵ֤י אֲבִיכֶם֙ נָתַ֨ן לָכֶ֤ם מַטְמוֹן֙ בְּאַמְתְּחֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם כַּסְפְּכֶ֖ם בָּ֣א אֵלָ֑י וַיּוֹצֵ֥א אֲלֵהֶ֖ם אֶת־שִׁמְעֽוֹן:
Your God: In your merit, and if your merit is insufficient, the God of your father, in the merit of your father, gave you a treasure. — [from Gen. Rabbah 92:4 according to Albeck’s edition, Lekach Tov, Sechel Tov]
אלהיכם: בזכותכם, ואם אין זכותכם כדאי, ואלהי אביכם, בזכות אביכם נתן לכם מטמון:
24Then the man brought the men (the brothers) into Joseph's house, and he gave [them] water, and they washed their feet, and he gave fodder to their donkeys. כדוַיָּבֵ֥א הָאִ֛ישׁ אֶת־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים בֵּ֣יתָה יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיִּתֶּן־מַ֨יִם֙ וַיִּרְחֲצ֣וּ רַגְלֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּתֵּ֥ן מִסְפּ֖וֹא לַֽחֲמֹֽרֵיהֶֽם:
Then the man brought: One bringing in after another bringing in [they were brought inside twice], because they (the brothers) pushed him (the man) outside until they spoke to him at the entrance of the house. As soon as he said to them,“Peace to you,” they followed and entered after him. — [from Gen. Rabbah 92:4]
ויבא האיש: הבאה אחר הבאה, לפי שהיו דוחפים אותו לחוץ עד שדברו אליו פתח הבית, ומשאמר להם (פסוק כג) שלום לכם, נמשכו ובאו אחריו:
25And they prepared the gift until Joseph would come at lunchtime, for they heard that there they would eat bread. כהוַיָּכִ֨ינוּ֙ אֶת־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה עַד־בּ֥וֹא יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּצָּֽהֳרָ֑יִם כִּ֣י שָֽׁמְע֔וּ כִּי־שָׁ֖ם יֹ֥אכְלוּ לָֽחֶם:
And they prepared: Heb. וַיָכִינוּ, they prepared. They adorned it with beautiful vessels. — [from Targum Onkelos]
ויכינו: הזמינו, עטרוהו בכלים נאים:
26And Joseph came home, and they brought him the gift that was in their hand[s], into the house, and they prostrated themselves to him to the ground. כווַיָּבֹ֤א יוֹסֵף֙ הַבַּ֔יְתָה וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ ל֛וֹ אֶת־הַמִּנְחָ֥ה אֲשֶׁר־בְּיָדָ֖ם הַבָּ֑יְתָה וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ־ל֖וֹ אָֽרְצָה:
into the house: From the anteroom into the reception hall.
הביתה: מפרוזדור לטרקלין:
27He inquired after their welfare, and he said to them, "Is your elderly father, whom you mentioned, well? Is he still alive?" כזוַיִּשְׁאַ֤ל לָהֶם֙ לְשָׁל֔וֹם וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֲשָׁל֛וֹם אֲבִיכֶ֥ם הַזָּקֵ֖ן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲמַרְתֶּ֑ם הַֽעוֹדֶ֖נּוּ חָֽי:
28And they said, "Your servant, our father, is well; he is still alive." And they bowed and prostrated themselves. כחוַיֹּֽאמְר֗וּ שָׁל֛וֹם לְעַבְדְּךָ֥ לְאָבִ֖ינוּ עוֹדֶ֣נּוּ חָ֑י וַיִּקְּד֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲוֽוּ כתיב וישתחו:
And they bowed and prostrated themselves: Because of the greeting [i.e. to acknowledge Joseph’s greeting]. Bowing (קִידָה) means inclining the head (קָדְקֹר). הִשְׁתַּחִוָאָה means prostrating oneself to the ground. — [from Ber. 34b]
ויקדו וישתחו: על שאלת שלום. קידה כפיפת קדקד, השתחוואה משתטח לארץ:
29And he lifted his eyes and saw Benjamin, his brother, the son of his mother, and he said, "Is this your little brother, whom you told me about?" And he said, "May God favor you, my son. " כטוַיִּשָּׂ֣א עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־בִּנְיָמִ֣ין אָחִיו֘ בֶּן־אִמּוֹ֒ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֲזֶה֙ אֲחִיכֶ֣ם הַקָּטֹ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֵלָ֑י וַיֹּאמַ֕ר אֱלֹהִ֥ים יָחְנְךָ֖ בְּנִֽי:
“May God favor you…”: In connection with the other tribes, we heard [them marked by] favor-“with whom God has favored your servant” (Gen. 33:5). Benjamin, however, had not yet been born. Therefore, Joseph blessed him with favor. — [from Gen. Rabbah 92:5]
א-להים יחנך בני: בשאר שבטים שמענו חנינה (לעיל לג ה) אשר חנן א-להים את עבדך, ובנימין עדיין לא נולד, לכך ברכו יוסף בחנינה:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 120 - 134
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
FOOTNOTES
1.Which remain hot on the inside while appearing cool to the touch (Rashi).
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 4
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Friday, Kislev 27, 5778 · December 15, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 4
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
ועוד יש לכל נפש אלקית שלשה לבושים
In addition [to its ten faculties — discussed in ch. 3], every divine soul (nefesh elokit) possesses three garments.
The soul possesses three auxiliary powers, which are its instruments of expression. Like garments, they can be donned or shed at will. When the soul utilizes any of these three powers it is “clothed” in them; when it does not use them, it is “divested” of them. Also, just as garments give expression to their wearer’s beauty and importance, so, too, when the soul dons and utilizes these “garments”, its intellect and emotion find expression.
שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה
They (the garments) are: thought, speech and action as they find expression in the 613 commandments of the Torah.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain how the divine soul expresses itself through these three garments.
שכשהאדם מקיים במעשה כל מצות מעשיות
For, when a person actively fulfills all the precepts which require physical action (e.g., when he dons the tefillin or fulfills the commandment of tzitzit, etc.),
ובדיבור הוא עוסק בפירוש כל תרי״ג מצות והלכותיהן
and with his power of speech he occupies himself in expounding all the 613 commandments and the laws governing their fulfillments,
i.e., the person’s speech is immersed in the study of Torah which includes the exposition of the commandments. For example, Tractate Berachot deals with the commandments and the laws of blessings; Tractate Shabbat deals with the commandments and laws of Shabbat observance, etc.,
ובמחשבה הוא משיג כל מה שאפשר לו להשיג בפרד״ס התורה
and with his power of thought he comprehends all that he is capable of understanding in thePardes (i.e., the four levels) of Torah,
The word Pardes (פרדס), whose literal meaning is “orchard”, is here used as an acronym of the four Hebrew words, Pshat, Remez, Derush and Sod, meaning, respectively: plain sense, intimation, homiletical exposition and esoteric meaning — the four levels of Scriptural interpretation.
הרי כללות תרי״ג אברי נפשו מלובשים בתרי״ג מצות התורה
then all of his soul’s 613 “organs” are clothed in the 613 commandments of the Torah.
Just as the human body consists of 248 organs and 365 blood vessels, corresponding to the Torah’s 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitive commandments (613 in all), the soul similarly comprises 613 “organs” — the spiritual counterpart of the 613 bodily organs — each “organ” corresponding to a specific commandment. When, through its three “garments” (thought, speech and action), the soul embraces all 613 commandments, then all 613 “organs” of the soul are enclothed in all 613 commandments — each “organ” of the soul in its related commandment.
(Note the Alter Rebbe’s emphasis of the word “all” (“all the precepts which require physical action,” “in expounding all the 613 commandments,” “all that he is capable of understanding”). Should his “garments” fail to include all 613 commandments — were he to omit one specific commandment — then the corresponding “organ” of the soul will remain bereft of its mitzvah-“garment”.)
Thus we see, in a general sense, how fulfillment of all the commandments with one’s thought, speech and action, “clothes” the entire soul in all 613 commandments of the Torah. The Alter Rebbe now goes on to specify which components of the soul are “clothed” by which particular garment.
ובפרטות: בחינות חב״ד שבנפשו מלובשות בהשגת התורה שהוא משיג בפרד״ס, כפי יכולת השגתו ושרש נפשו למעלה
Specifically: the CHaBaD of his soul (i.e., his intellectual faculties) are clothed in the comprehension of the Torah, which he comprehends in [the four levels of] Pardes of the Torah, to the extent of his mental capacity and according to the supernal root of his soul.
One’s mental capacity determines how much he may understand; the root of his soul determines the area in Torah for which he will have the greatest aptitude. For example, one whose soul is related to the level of Pshat is more likely to comprehend the straightforward meaning of the words of Torah; a soul related to Remez will delve to the stratum of implied meaning underlying the words; and so on. When the person comprehends Torah to the extent of his mental capacity then the CHaBaD components of his soul are clothed in the garment of thought of Torah, i.e., thought as it is related to Torah.
והמדות, שהן יראה ואהבה וענפיהן ותולדותיהן, מלובשות בקיום המצות במעשה ובדיבור שהוא תלמוד תורה שכנגד כולן
And the middot, namely the emotions of fear and love (of the Almighty) together with their offshoots and ramifications, are clothed in the fulfillment of the commandments in deed and in word, (“in word”) meaning in the study of Torah, which is1 “the equivalent of all the commandments.”
The Alter Rebbe’s previous statement, that in comprehending Torah the soul’s faculty of intellect clothes itself in thought, requires no further elaboration; it goes without saying that the intellect can comprehend Torah only through the vehicle of thought.
His latter statement, however (that the middot are clothed in the fulfillment of the commandments in deed or in word), requires further amplification. What connection do the middot of fear and love have with action and speech? The seat of the emotions is in the heart; how do they come to clothe themselves in actions which are done with one’s hand (in donning tefillin, for example), or in speech where one uses his mouth (such as in oral Torah study)?
In answer to this question, the Alter Rebbe explains that completeness in the performance of the commandments demands love and fear of G-d; one can bring to his fulfillment of the commandments the fullness generated by vitality and depth of feeling only when he is imbued with fear and love of the Almighty.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
כי האהבה היא שרש כל רמ״ח מצות עשה וממנה הן נמשכות, ובלעדה אין להם קיום אמיתי
For love is the root of a Jew’s observance of all the 248 positive commands; from it they issue forth, and without it they have no true substance.
כי המקיימן באמת הוא האוהב את שם ה׳ וחפ׳ לדבקה בו באמת
For he who fulfills them in truth, is he who loves G-d’s Name and who truly desires to cleave to Him.
ואי אפשר לדבקה בו באמת כי אם בקיום רמ״ח פקודין
Now, one cannot truly cleave to Him except through the fulfillment of the 248 positivecommandments,
Thus, one’s love of G-d and desire to cleave to Him dictate that he observe the commandments. Why is it possible to cleave to G-d only by fulfilling the commandments?
שהן רמ״ח אברין דמלכא כביכול, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
for they are the 2482 “organs of the King” (of G-d, King of the universe), as it were, as is explained elsewhere.3
Just as each of the organs of a human being is a vessel for the particular soul power that clothes itself in it (e.g., the eye is a vessel fot the power of sight, the ear for hearing, and so on), so is each commandment a vessel for the specific aspect of G-d’s Will (the “Supernal Will”) which clothes itself in that particular commandment. Each commandment expresses not only the Supernal Will that a specific act be carried out, but also the particulars of its observance. Thus it is understood that by performing the commandments one achieves unity with G-d, Whose Will they express.
It follows, then, that love of G-d clothes (or expresses) itself in one’s performance of the 248 positive commandments; it is their root and life-force, which leads one to observe them with the totality of one’s being. For when one loves G-d and desires to cleave to Him, he will perform His commandments as he would perform a task for a dear friend — with delight and zest, and with all of his being.
והיראה היא שרש לשס״ה לא תעשה, כי ירא למרוד במלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא
Fear is the root of one’s observance of the 365 prohibitive commands, for he (the G-d-fearing person)will fear to rebel against the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He (by acting in defiance of His Will; he will therefore refrain from anything that G-d forbade).
At this level, the word “fear” is taken in its simple sense — trepidation before the severity of G-d’s command.
או יראה פנימית מזו, שמתבושש מגדולתו, למרות עיני כבודו ולעשות הרע בעיניו
Or a deeper level of fear — that he feels ashamed before G-d’s greatness, so that he will not rebel against the all-seeing eyes of His glory by doing what is evil in His eyes,
כל תועבת ה׳ אשר שנא, הם הקליפות וסטרא אחרא
namely, any of the abominable things hated by G-d, which are the kelipot and sitra achra (the “other side” — that which is the opposite of holiness),
אשר יניקתם מהאדם התחתון, ואחיזתם בו הוא בשס״ה מצות לא תעשה
which draw their nurture from man below (in this world) and have their hold in him so that they be able to derive their nurture and life through him through his violation of the 365 prohibitive commandments.
When a person transgresses a prohibitive commandment, G-d forbid, he provides the kelipot with additional strength and vitality. Since kelipot and the sitra achra are entities which conceal G-dliness and holiness and are as such despised by G-d, the Jew therefore guards himself against transgressing. He is “ashamed” to transgress and give the kelipot strength and life. Thus, fear of G-d clothes itself in the observance of prohibitive commandments; for one’s fear of G-d enables him to withstand temptation and refrain from transgression.
We now understand clearly how fear and love of G-d are related to the fulfillment of the commandments, and how the middot are the root and life-force in the performance of commandments in both action and speech.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishnah, Peah 1:1. |
| 2. | Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 30. |
| 3. | See further, ch. 23. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassFriday, Kislev 27, 5778 · December 15, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
Negative Commandment 356
Remarrying a Divorced Wife Who Remarried in the Interim
"Her first husband who sent her away may not marry her again"—Deuteronomy 24:4.
It is forbidden for a man to remarry a woman he divorced if she has remarried [and subsequently been divorced again or widowed] in the interim.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Remarrying a Divorced Wife Who Remarried in the Interim
Negative Commandment 356
Translated by Berel Bell
The 356th prohibition is that a man is forbidden from remarrying his divorced wife, if she was married to another man in the interim.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He) [that if her second husband divorces her or dies,] "then her first husband who divorced her cannot remarry her."
The punishment for transgression of this prohibition is malkos (lashes).
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in Yevamos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Even if the second husband passed away or divorced her.
2.Deut. 24:4.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassTefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter Three
1
There are eight requirements in the making of tefillin. All of them are halachot transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai and, therefore, it is necessary to fulfill them all. If one deviates with regard to any of them, the [tefillin] are unacceptable. They are:
a) The tefillin must be square and must be sewn closed in a square. [Both] diagonals must be equal, and thus all four angles will be equal.
b) The leather of the head [tefillin] should have a shin embossed on both its right and left sides.
c) The passages should be wrapped in fabric.
d) A hair should be wound around that fabric. Afterwards, they should be placed in their compartment.
e) They should be sewn [closed] with the sinews [of an animal].
f) The leather compartment in which they are placed should have a place for the straps to pass through so that they can be moved through the [tefillin's] handle.
g) The straps should be black.
h) The knot with which they are tied should be the renowned knot that is formed like a dalet.
א
שמונה הלכות יש במעשה התפילין כולן הלכה למשה מסיני ולפיכך כולן מעכבות ואם שינה באחת מהן פסל ואלו הם:
שיהיו מרובעות וכן תפירתן ברבוע ואלכסונן ברבוע עד שיהיה להן ארבע זויות שוות ושיהיה בעור של ראש צורת שי"ן מימין ומשמאל ושיכרוך הפרשיות במטלית ושיכרוך אותן בשיער מעל המטלית ואח"כ מכניסן בבתיהן ושיהיו תופרין אותן בגידין ושעושין להן מעבורת מעור החפוי שתכנס בה הרצועה עד שתהא עוברת והולכת בתוך תובר שלה ושיהיו הרצועות שחורות ושיהיה הקשר שלהן קשר ידוע כצורת דל"ת:
Commentary on Halachah 1
2
How are the head tefillin made? We take a cubic wooden block. [It need not, however, be a perfect cube]. If its height is [slightly] more or less than its width, it is of no consequence. We are required to take care only that its width and length are alike.
Three grooves are carved into it so that four projections will be made as depicted. Leather is taken and soaked in water, and then, the mold is placed within it. The leather is inserted in between the grooves.
While [the leather] is still wet, it is plucked and squeezed until the shape of a shin with three heads is formed on the right side of the tefillin as they will be worn, and the shape of a shin with four heads is formed on the left side of the tefillin as they will be worn.
ב
כיצד עושים תפילין של ראש לוקחין עץ מרובע ארכו כרחבו וכגבהו ואם היה גבהו יותר על רחבו או פחות ממנו אין בכך כלום ואין מקפידין אלא על ארכו שיהא כרחבו וחופרין בו שלשה חריצין כדי שיעשה לו ארבע ראשים כגון זה ולוקחין עור ומרטיבין אותו במים ומשימין בו את העץ ומכניסין את העור בין כל חריץ וחריץ ומכמשים אותו והוא רטוב מכאן ומכאן עד שעושין בו דמות שי"ן שיש לה שלשה ראשין מימין המניח תפילין ודמות שי"ן שיש לה ארבעה ראשים משמאל המניח:
Commentary on Halachah 2
3
The leather is then left on the mold until it dries, and then it is removed. Thus, the leather will be [formed into a block] with four empty compartments.
One of the passages from the Torah is placed in each compartment, and then a portion of the leather is folded over beneath them, and then they are sewn closed on all four corners.
Within this lower piece of leather, a place should be left for the straps to be inserted, like a handle. It is called a ma'aboret.
ג
ומניחין את העור על העץ עד שייבש ואחר כך חולץ העור מעל גבי האימום של עץ ונמצא העור שיש בו ארבעה בתים פנויין ומכניסין פרשה בכל בית ובית ומחזירין מקצת העור מלמטה ותופרין אותו מארבע פנותיו ומניחין מן העור שלמטה מקום שתכנס בו הרצועה כמו תובר והוא הנקרא מעבורת:
Commentary on Halachah 3
4
How are the tefillin of the arm made? We take a wooden block whose length is equal to its width and is a fingerbreadth - or slightly more or slightly less - high, and place wet leather around it.
The leather is left on this mold until it has dried, and then it is removed. The four passages are deposited in the place left by the mold. A portion of the leather is folded over beneath them, and then they are sewn closed on all four corners. A piece of leather, like a handle, should be left for the straps [to be inserted].
ד
וכיצד עושין תפילין של יד לוקחין עץ מרובע ארכו כרחבו ויהיה גבהו כאצבע או יתר על זה מעט או פחות מעט ומחפין אותו בעור רטוב ומניחין את העור על האימום עד שייבש וחולץ את העור ומניח את ארבע הפרשיות במקום העץ ומחזיר מקצת העור מלמטה ותופרו מארבע פנותיו ומניחין מן העור תובר מקום הרצועות:
Commentary on Halachah 4
5
What is the order of the passages? For the head tefillah, the final passage, V'hayah im shamo'a, is placed in the first compartment on the right side of the person putting on the tefillin. Shema is placed next to it. V'hayah ki y'viacha is placed in the third compartment next to Shema, and Kadesh Li is placed in the fourth compartment, on the left side of the person putting on the tefillin.
Thus, a person who is facing the person wearing the tefillin will read them in the following order. If their order is altered, they are not acceptable.
ה
כיצד סדור הפשריות בתפלה של ראש מכניס פרשה אחרונה שהיא והיה אם שמע בבית ראשון שהוא על ימין המניח ושמע סמוכה לה והיה כי יבאך בבית שלישי סמוכה לשמע וקדש לי בבית רביעי שהוא לשמאל המניח תפילין כדי שיהא הקורא שלפניו כנגד פני המניח קורא על הסדר הזה כגון זה ואם החליף סדור זה פסולות:
Commentary on Halachah 5
6
[The passages for] the arm tefillin are written on four columns on a single piece of parchment like a Torah scroll, according to the order in which these passages are found in the Torah, in the following manner:
If they were written on four separate pieces of parchment and placed in the same compartment, one fulfills one's obligation. There is no need to glue them together.
ו
תפלה של יד כותבם בארבעה דפין בעור אחד ארוך כספר תורה על סדורן בתורה כגון זה אם כתבן על ארבע עורו' והכניסן בבית אחד יצא ואינו צריך לדבקם:
Commentary on Halachah 6
7
When the passages - both of the head and the arm tefillin - are rolled closed, they should be rolled from the end to the beginning, so that were the passage to be rolled open, it would be possible to read each portion from the beginning to the end.
ז
כשהוא גולל הפרשיות בין של ראש בין של יד גולל אותן מסופן לתחלתן עד שתמצא כשתפתח הפרשה תקרא כל פרשה ופרשה מתחלתה עד סופה:
Commentary on Halachah 7
8
Before the passages are placed in their compartments, they should be wrapped in a fabric, and hair should be wound around them. Afterwards, they may be placed in their compartments.
This hair should be from a kosher species of animal or beast. Even when these animals died without being ritually slaughtered or were treifah, [their hair is nevertheless acceptable]. It has already become a universally accepted custom to wind hair from the tail of a calf [around these parchments].
ח
וכשמכניסין את הפרשיות בבתים שלהם כורכין אותן במטלית ועל המטלית שיער ואח"כ מכניסין אותן בבתיהן ושיער זה צריך להיות שיער בהמה או של חיה טהורה ואפילו מנבילות וטריפות שלהן וכבר נהגו כל העם לבורכן בשיער זנב העגלים:
Commentary on Halachah 8
9
When the tefillin are sewn closed, they may be sewn only with sinews from a kosher species of animal or beast. [Sinews taken from] animals which died without being ritually slaughtered or which were treifah [are nevertheless acceptable].
It is customary to take sinews from the heels of kosher animals and beasts. They are white in color. If they are too firm, they are softened by [pounding them with] stones and the like until they become like flax. Afterwards, they are spun and twisted into threads and used to sew together tefillin and the sheets of Torah scrolls.
ט
כשתופרין את התפילין אין תופרין אלא בגידין של בהמה או של חיה טהורה ואפילו מנבילות וטריפות שלהן לוקחין הגידין שיש בעקב הבהמה או החיה טהורים והם לבנים ואם הם קשים מרככין אותן באבנים וכיוצא בהן עד שיעשו כפשתן וטווין אותן ושוזרין אותן ובהן תופרין התפילין ויריעות ספר תורה:
Commentary on Halachah 9
10
When the tefillin are sewn closed, they should be sewn as a square. It is a widely accepted practice for there to be three stitches on each side, so that there will be twelve stitches in all. This applies for both the arm tefillin and the head tefillin. If, however, one made ten or fourteen stitches, there is no difficulty.
For each of the stitches, the thread must pass through from both sides.
י
כשתופרין התפילין תופרין אותן ברבוע והלכה רווחת שיהיו בכל צד שלש תפירות עד שיהיו הכל שתים עשרה תפירות בין של יד בין של ראש ואם עשה התפירות עשר או ארבע עשרה עושה וכל התפירות יהיה החוט שלהן סובב משתי רוחות:
Commentary on Halachah 10
11
The groove between [each of the compartments] of the head tefillin should reach the stitches [which sew the tefillin closed]. [Nevertheless,] if the groove is discernible, so that the [division into] four compartments is openly visible, [the tefillin] are acceptable even if the groove does not extend until the stitches. If, however, the groove is not discernible, [the tefillin] are not acceptable.
It is necessary to pass a thread or cord through each of the grooves on [the outer side of] the leather [compartments] to separate between the compartments. It is common custom to pass one of the sinews used to sew [the tefillin closed] between each of these three grooves.
יא
וצריך שיגיע החריץ של תפילין של ראש עד מקום התפר ואם היה החריץ ניכר כדי שיהיו ארבעה ראשין נראין לכל ואף על פי שאין החריץ מגיע למקום התפר כשרות ואם אין חריץ ניכר פסולות וצריך להעביר בתוך כל חריץ וחריץ על גבי העור חוט או משיחה להבדיל בין בית לבית ומנהג פשוט להעביר גיד מגידי התפירה בכל חריץ וחריץ משלשתן:
Commentary on Halachah 11
12
How are the straps made? We take leather straps [at least] the length of a barley-corn in width. If they are wider than that, they are acceptable. The length of the straps of the head tefillin should be sufficient to surround the head, tie the knot, and extend on either side of the head until they reach the navel or slightly above it.
The length of the strap of the arm should be sufficient to surround the forearm, tie its knot, and extend until it can be wound three times around the middle finger and tied. If the straps are longer than this, they are acceptable.
יב
וכיצד עושין הרצועות לוקחין רצועה של עור רחבה כאורך השעורה ואם היתה רחבה מזו השיעור כשרה ואורך רצועה של ראש כדי שתקיף את הראש ויקשור ממנה הקשר ותמתח שתי הרצועות מכאן ומכאן עד שיגיעו לטבור או למעלה ממנו מעט ואורך רצועה של יד כדי שתקיף את הזרוע ויקשור ממנה הקשר ותמתח רצועה אחת על אצבע אמצעית ויכרוך ממנה על אצבעו שלש כריכות ויקשור ואם היו הרצועות ארוכות יתר על שיעורים האלו כשרות:
Commentary on Halachah 12
13
One places the straps through their handle, leaving space for the [circumference of] one's head, and ties a square knot, which resembles a dalet. Every Torah scholar should learn how to tie this knot. It is impossible to describe this knot in writing. Rather, it must be seen.
The straps of the hand tefillin should be tied with a knot that resembles a yud. This knot should allow the strap to pass through it so that it can be widened or narrowed while one is tying the tefillin on one's arm.
יג
ומכניס רצועה של ראש בתובר שלה ומקיף במדת ראשו וקושר קשר מרובע כמין דל"ת וקשר זה צריך כל תלמיד חכם ללמדו ואי אפשר להודיע צורתו בכתב אלא בראיית העין וכן בשל יד קושר קשר כמין יו"ד ותהיה הרצועה של יד עולה ויורדת בתוך הקשר כדי שירחיב ויקצר בעת שירצה לקשור על ידו:
Commentary on Halachah 13
14
The outer surface of the straps of both the head and the arm tefillin must be black. This is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai.
In contrast, with regard to the inner surface, since it faces the inside, it is acceptable if it is green or white. One should not make this [side of the straps] red, since it will be embarrassing for him if they become overturned.
The back of the straps should be the same color as the compartment; if it is green, they should be green; if it is white, they should be white. It is attractive for tefillin to be entirely black, the compartments and the entire strap.
יד
הרצועות של תפילין בין של ראש בין של יד פניהם החיצונים שחורים וזו הלכה למשה מסיני אבל אחורי הרצועות הואיל ומבפנים הן אם היו ירוקות או לבנות כשרות אדומות לא יעשה שמא תהפך הרצועה וגנאי הוא לו ולא יהיה אחורי הרצועה לעולם אלא כעין הקציצה אם ירוקה ירוקין ואם לבנה לבנים ונוי הוא לתפילין שיהיו כולן שחורות הקציצה והרצועה כולה:
Commentary on Halachah 14
15
The leather used to cover the tefillin and from which the straps are made should come from a kosher species of animal, beast, or fowl. Even when these animals died without being ritually slaughtered or were treifah, [their hides are nevertheless acceptable]. If, however, leather from a non-kosher species was used or if they were covered with gold, they are not acceptable.
The leather used for the straps must be processed with the intent that it be used for the mitzvah. In contrast, the leather used to cover the tefillin need not be processed at all. It is even acceptable if it is made from matzah. [Indeed,] this is the practice in many communities.
טו
העור שמחפין בו התפילין ושעושין ממנו הרצועות הוא עור של בהמה או חיה או עוף הטהורים ואפילו נבלות וטרפות שלהן ואם עשה מעור טמאים או שחפה תפילין בזהב פסולות ועור הרצועה צריך עיבוד לשמה אבל בעור שמחפין בו אינו צריך עיבוד כלל אפי' עשהו מצה כשר ומקומות הרבה נהגו לעשות אותן בעור מצה:
Commentary on Halachah 15
16
tefillin may be made only by a Jew, since making them is equivalent to writing [the passages], because of the shin [embossed] in the leather [compartment] mentioned above. Therefore, if they were made by a gentile or sewn closed by him, they are unacceptable.
Similarly, they may not be made by any others whose writing [of the passages] is not acceptable.
טז
אין עושין התפילין אלא ישראל שעשייתן ככתיבתן מפני השי"ן שעושין בעור כמו שאמרנו לפיכך אם היפך הכותי או תפרן פסולות והוא הדין לכל הפסול לכתבן שלא יעשה אותן:
Commentary on Halachah 16
17
A head tefillah may not be made into an arm tefillah, but an arm tefillah may be made into a head tefillah, because an article should not be lowered from a higher level of holiness to a lesser one. Similarly, the strap of a head tefillah should not be used for an arm tefillah.
When does the above apply? After one has worn them. However, if head tefillin have never been worn, one may make them into arm tefillin. How is this done? One drapes leather around them until they become a single [compartment] and [then, one can] tie them on his hand.
יז
תפלה של ראש אין עושין אותה של יד ושל יד עושין אותה של ראש לפי שאין מורידין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה וכן רצועה של תפלה של ראש אין עושין אותה לתפלה של יד בד"א כשלבשן אבל תפילין של ראש שלא לבשן אדם מעולם אם רצה להחזירן ליד מותר וכיצד עושין טולה עליה עור עד שתעשה אחת וקושרה על ידו:
Commentary on Halachah 17
18
[The following laws apply when] the stitches of the tefillin become torn: If two stitches which are located next to each other become torn, or three stitches become torn even though they are not located next to each other, [the tefillin] are unacceptable.
When does the above apply? With regard to old [tefillin]. With regard to new [tefillin], however, if their base remains intact, they are acceptable. [tefillin are considered] to be "new" as long as the leather remains strong and does not tear when one takes hold of a portion of the leather where the stitch was torn and hangs the tefillin. If the leather is not fit to hang the tefillin because it will tear, the [tefillin are considered] "old."
יח
תפילין שנפסקו התפירות שלהן אם היו שתי התפירות זו בצד זו או שנפסקו שלש תפירות אפילו זו שלא כנגד זו הרי אלו פסולות במה דברים אמורים בישנות אבל בחדשות כל זמן שפני טבלן קיימות כשרות ואלו הן החדשות כל שאוחזין מקצת העור שנקרע תפרו ותולין בו התפילין והוא חזק ואינו נכרת הרי אלו חדשות ואם אין ראוי לתלות בו אלא הוא נפסק הרי אלו ישנות:
Commentary on Halachah 18
19
Should a strap be torn, [the pieces] should not be tied or sewn together. Rather, it should be removed and entombed, and another one [substituted for it].
The remnants of [torn] straps are not acceptable unless their length and width meets - or exceeds - the minimum requirements.
At all times, a person should be careful that the external surface of the straps faces upward when he ties them on his arm and head.
יט
רצועה שנפסקה אין קושרין אותה ואין תופרין אותה אלא מוציאה וגונזה ועושין אחרת ושיורי הרצועה פסולין עד שיהא ארכה ורחבה כשיעור או יתר עליו ולעולם יזהר להיות פני הרצועה למעלה בעת שקושר אותן על ידו ועל ראשו:
Commentary on Halachah 19
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Seven, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Eight, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Nine
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassGerushin - Chapter Seven
1
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a get from one place to another in Eretz Yisrael.1 Although [the agent] did not witness the writing of the get and does not know who the witnesses are, but rather the get was given to him by the husband, who instructed him to give it to his wife, [the agent] may give [the woman the get] in the presence of witnesses.2 Although the identity of the witnesses [who signed the get] is unknown to us, [the woman] is considered divorced, and she may remarry on this basis.
א
שליח שהביא גט ממקום למקום בארץ ישראל אע"פ שלא ראה כתיבת הגט ולא ידע מי הם עדיו אלא נתן לו הבעל גט ואמר לו תן גט זה לאשתי הרי זה נותנו לה בפני עדים ואע"פ שאין עדיו ידועין אצלנו ותהיה מגורשת בו:
2
If the husband came and protested, saying: "I never divorced her. The get she was given is a forgery," the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified.3 If this is impossible, and the witnesses are not known at all, she must leave [her second husband], and [any children born to them] are considered illegitimate,4 for [we assume that] she has not been divorced.5 If the get has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt.6
For this reason, women who we presume hate each other are not trusted to bring a get to one another in Eretz Yisrael. [We suspect that] it might be a forgery, because one desires that the other remarry and be forbidden to her husband[s].7
ב
בא הבעל וערער ואמר לא גירשתיה מעולם וגט שהובא לה מזוייף הוא יתקיים בחותמיו. ואם לא נתקיים ולא נודעו עדיו כלל תצא והולד ממזר שהרי אינה מגורשת [אבד הגט הרי זה ספק מגורשת]. לפיכך נשים שחזקתן שהן שונאות זו את זו אין נאמנות להביא גט בארץ ישראל זו לזו שמא מזוייף הוא ותתכוין לקלקל אותה כדי שתנשא ותאסר על בעלה:
3
These are the women who we presume hate each other:8 A mother-in-law, the daughter of a mother-in-law, another woman married to the same man - this applies even if this woman has since remarried9 - her yevamah10 - this applies even if she was her sister11 - and her husband's daughter [from another marriage]. All other women are acceptable [to act in this capacity].
ג
ואלו הן הנשים שחזקתן שונאות זו את זו. חמותה ובת חמותה וצרתה אפילו היתה צרתה נשואה לאחר. ויבמתה אפילו היתה אחותה ובת בעלה. אבל שאר כל הנשים כשרות:
4
When a man brings a get from one place to another place in Eretz Yisrael and becomes sick or is prevented from fulfilling his agency because of factors beyond his control, he may send the get via a second agent.12 Similarly, if the second agent becomes sick, he may send it via another agent. Indeed, even 100 agents [may be appointed in this manner].
There is no need for the agent to appoint the second agent in the presence of witnesses.13 The final agent to whom the get is given should give it to the woman in the presence of two witnesses, and the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when the first agent dies [before the divorce takes effect].14
ד
המביא גט ממקום למקום בארץ ישראל וחלה או נאנס משלחו ביד אחר. וכן השני אם חלה משלחו ביד אחר ואפילו מאה, ואין צריך עדים לחזור ולעשות שליח בפניהם. והאחרון שהגיע הגט לידו נותנו לה בפני שנים ותתגרש בו אע"פ שמת הראשון:
5
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a get from one place to another in the diaspora, from Eretz Yisrael to the diaspora or from the diaspora to Eretz Yisrael. If the agent was present at the time of the composition and signature of the get, he should say, in the presence of two witnesses, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence."15
Afterwards, it should be given in her presence, and the divorce takes effect, even though the identity of the witnesses is not known to us. Even if the witnesses' names resemble the names of gentiles, we do not suspect [that there is any difficulty].16
ה
שליח שהביא גט ממקום למקום בחו"ל או מא"י לחו"ל. או מחו"ל לארץ. אם היה השליח עומד בשעת כתיבת הגט וחתימתו הרי זה אומר בפני שנים בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ואח"כ יתן לה בפניהם ותתגרש בו. ואע"פ שאין עדיו ידועין אצלנו. ואפילו היו שמות עדיו כשמות העכו"ם אין חוששין להן:
6
If [afterwards,] the husband came and protested [that the get is a forgery], his words are of no consequence.17 Therefore, even women who we presume hate each other are relied upon to bring a get in such a situation and state that it was written and signed in their presence.18
ו
בא הבעל ועמד וערער אין משגיחין בו. לפיכך אף הנשים ששונאות זו את זו נאמנות להביא גט זה ולומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:
7
Similarly, when an agent who brings a get in Eretz Yisrael says: "It was written and signed in my presence," although he is not required to do so, if the husband comes and protests [that the get was forged], [the husband's] words are of no consequence.19
[With regard to a get sent to or from the diaspora,] if the agent was not present at the time of the writing or signing of the get, it may not be given to the woman unless the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified.20 The agent himself may serve as [one of] the three [judges] who verify the signatures of the witnesses.21
If [the signatures] were not verified, and the get was given to the woman, the divorce is unacceptable22 until [the signatures] are verified. If the husband comes and protests, and the signatures are not verified, we consider her not to be divorced.23 If the get has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
ז
וכן שליח שהביא גט בארץ ישראל ואמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אע"פ שאינו צריך אם יבא הבעל ויערער אין משגיחין בו. ואם אין השליח עומד בשעת כתיבה וחתימה לא ינתן לה אלא אם כן נתקיים בחותמיו. ויש לשליח להיות מכלל השלשה שקיימו אותן בחותמיו. ואם לא נתקיים ונתן לה הרי זה פסול עד שיתקיים. ואם בא הבעל וערער ולא נתקיים אינה מגורשת. אבד הגט הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
8
Why did [our Sages] require [the agent] to say: "It was written and signed in my presence" in the diaspora? So that the woman would not have to have [the signatures] verified if the husband comes and protests. [Our Sages did not desire that she be faced with such a predicament,] because witnesses are often not available to verify signatures [on a document that has been taken] from one place to another in the diaspora.
ח
ומפני מה הצריכו לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם בחוץ לארץ. כדי שלא תהיה האשה צריכה לקיימו אם יבא הבעל ויערער מפני שאין העדים מצויין לקיימו ממקום למקום בחוצה לארץ:
9
When a husband brought explicit proof24 that a get concerning which [an agent] said: "It was written and signed in my presence" is a forgery, [the get] is void. For [our Sages] accepted the statements of one person only in the face of a protest raised by a husband that was not accompanied by substantial proof. When, however, this person's statements are contradicted by witnesses, [his statements] are not accepted.
ט
בעל שהביא ראיה ברורה שגט זה שנאמר בו בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם מזוייף הוא הרי זה בטל. שלא האמינו דבריו של אחד שאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אלא לדחות ערעור הבעל שאין עמו ראיה. אבל במקום עדים שמכחישין אותו לא האמינוהו:
10
The rivers in Eretz Yisrael and the islands in the Mediterranean Sea that are within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael25 are bound by the rules pertaining to Eretz Yisrael. [The islands] that are outside these boundaries are bound by the rules pertaining to the diaspora. The boundaries of Eretz Yisrael are described in Hilchot Terumot.
With regard to gittin, [the rules pertaining to] Eretz Yisrael also pertain to Babylonia.26
י
הנהרות שבארץ ישראל והנסין שבים הגדול שבתוך התחום של א"י הרי הן כא"י ושחוץ לתחום כחו"ל. ובהלכות תרומות יתבארו תחומי א"י. ובבל כא"י לגיטין:
11
When a get was written in Eretz Yisrael and signed in the diaspora, [the agent] is required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence."27 If it was written in the diaspora and signed in Eretz Yisrael, [the agent] is not required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence."28
יא
גט שכתבו בא"י וחתמו בחו"ל צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. כתבו בחו"ל וחתמו בא"י אינו צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:
12
When a portion of the get is written in [the agent's] presence, and all the signatures were executed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence,"29 provided it was the initial portion - even one line30 - [that was written in his presence].
[Moreover,] even if he merely heard the noise [made by the scribe's] pen [writing], and the witnesses signed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Similarly, even if the scribe went out to the marketplace and then returned and completed the get, [the agent] does not fear that another [man] found [the scribe] and told him [to write a get for him], and he [completed] writing the get for another person.31 Instead, [the agent] may say: "It was written and signed in my presence."
יב
נכתב מקצת הגט בפניו ונחתם כולו בפניו. אם מקצתו הראשון הוא הרי זה אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אפילו לא נכתב בו אלא שיטה אחת בפניו ואפילו שמע קול הקולמוס כותב וחתמו העדים בפניו הרי זה אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. וכן אם יצא הסופר לשוק וחזר והשלים את הגט אינו חושש שמא אחר מצאו ואמר לו ולשם אשה אחרת כתבו אלא אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:
13
If [the agent] said: "It was written in my presence," but did not say, "It was signed in my presence," [if he said,] "It was signed in my presence," but did not say, "It was written in my presence," or [if he said,] "The entire [get] was written in my presence, and one witness signed [in my presence], but not the other witness," even if he himself was the other witness,32 the signature of the witnesses must be verified.33 Only then, may [the get] be given to her.
If he and another person testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, who did not sign in his presence,34 [the get] is acceptable and may be given to her. Needless to say, if two other [witnesses] testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, [the get] is acceptable.
יג
אמר בפני נכתב אבל לא בפני נחתם. בפני נחתם אבל לא בפני נכתב. בפני נכתב כולו וחתם עד אחד אבל לא העד השני אפילו היה הוא העד השני, הרי זה יתקיים בחותמיו ואח"כ ינתן לה. ואם העיד הוא ואחר על העד השני שלא חתם בפניו הרי זה כשר וינתן לה. ואין צריך לומר אם העידו שנים אחרים על כתב העד השני שזה כשר:
14
When two agents bring a get from the diaspora, they may give it to [the woman], causing the divorce to be effective, even though it was not written and signed in their presence. Since the husband gave it to them to give to his wife, his protests regarding this get are of no consequence.35 Although [the signatures of the witnesses] have not been verified, the agents he [appointed] serve as witnesses [to its authenticity].36 For if these witnesses said, "She was divorced in our presence," the divorce would be effective, even though there is no get present.
יד
שנים שהביאו גט בחו"ל אע"פ שלא נכתב ונחתם בפניהם הואיל ונתנו להם הבעל ליתנו לאשתו הרי אלו נותנין לה ותהיה מגורשת. שהרי אין הבעל יכול לערער בגט זה אע"פ שאינו מקויים שהרי שלוחיו הם עדיו. שאילו אמרו השנים בפנינו נתגרשה הרי זו מגורשת אף על פי שאין שם גט:
15
When does the above apply? When the get is in the possession of both of them.37 If, however, the get is not in the possession of both of them, they must say: "It was written and signed in our presence."
Accordingly, if one agent says, "It was written in my presence," and the second38 says, "It was signed in my presence," or they both say, "It was written in our presence," and one39 says: "It was signed in my presence," since it is not in the possession of both of them, it should not be given to the woman unless the authenticity of the signatures has been verified.
טו
במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם אבל אם אין הגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם צריכין לומר בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם. לפיכך אם אמר אחד בפני נכתב והאחר אומר בפני נחתם ואפילו שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם הואיל ואינו יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם לא ינתן לה עד שיתקיים בחותמיו:
16
If one person said: "It was written in my presence,"40 and two people say: "It was signed in our presence," [the get] is acceptable. [This applies] even when they are not in possession [of the get], because the signatures [of the witnesses] have been verified.41
טז
אמר אחד בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר אע"פ שאינו יוצא מתחת ידם שהרי נתקיים בחותמיו:
17
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a get in the diaspora and gives it to the woman in private, or gives it to her in the presence of two witnesses, but does not tell her: "It was written and signed in my presence." Even if she has married, he should take the get back from her and then give it to her in the presence of two witnesses and say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If he does not take it back from her, the divorce is unacceptable42 until the signatures [of the witnesses] are verified.43
יז
שליח שהביא גט בחו"ל ונתנו לה בינו לבינה או שנתנו לה בפני שנים ולא אמר לה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אע"פ שנשאת נוטלו ממנה וחוזר ונותנו לה בפני שנים ואומר בפניהם בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. ואם לא נטלו ממנה הרי זה פסול עד שיתקיים בחותמיו:
18
If [the agent] gave a woman a get and did not suffice to say: "It was written and signed in my presence," before he lost the power of speech, the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified.44 Afterwards, he may give it to her.
יח
נתנו לה ולא הספיק לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם עד שנשתתק הרי זה יתקיים בחותמיו ואחר כך ינתן לה:
19
A blind person may not bring a get from the diaspora, because he is unable to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Accordingly, if [the get] was written and signed in his presence while he possessed the power of sight, and he became blind afterwards, he may say in the presence of three [men]: "It was written and signed in my presence," and give [the get] to her.45
Similarly, when a woman brings a get from the diaspora, she must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," in the presence of three [men]. The provision to make these statements in the presence of two men applies only when the agent is acceptable to serve as a witness.46 In such an instance, he joins the other two and serves as one of the three who verify the get, based on his statements.47For a witness may serve as a judge in matters of Rabbinic law.
יט
הסומא אינו יכול להביא גט זה של חו"ל מפני שאינו יכול לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. לפיכך אם נכתב ונחתם בפניו כשהוא פתוח ונסתמא הרי זה אומר בפני שלשה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ונותנו לה. וכן האשה שהביאה גט זה של חו"ל צריכה שלשה לומר בפניהם בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. שלא אמרו בפני שנים אלא בזמן שהשליח כשר לעדות שהרי הוא מצטרף עם השנים ונמצא מכלל השלישי שקיימו גט זה בדבריו שהעד נעשה דיין בדבר שהוא מדבריהם:
20
When an agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should approach a Jewish court48 and tell them: "This get was written and signed in my presence."49 [The court,50 then, appoints] another agent and sends [the get to the woman] with him.
The second agent does not have to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Instead, he says: "I am an agent of the court," and then he gives [the get to the woman] in the presence of witnesses.51
כ
חלה השליח או נאנס בא לבית דין ואומר להם גט זה בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם והן משלחין אותו ביד שליח אחר. ואין השליח האחרון צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אלא אומר שליח בית דין אני ונותנו לה בפני עדים:
21
If the second agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should appoint another agent in the presence of the court. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner].
[Before transferring the get,] the final agent says: "I am an agent of the court." He should then give the woman [the get]. [The get can be given] even if the first agent died.
Why must [the appointment be made] in court? Because [the first agent] must say: "It was written and signed in my presence."52 If, however, the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified, although one agent gives it to another in private - even if 100 agents are appointed in this way - the get is acceptable when it reaches the woman.
Although the husband did not explicitly tell the agent: "Send [the get] via another person if you are hindered by forces beyond your control," the agent may [appoint another agent] if he becomes ill or is hindered by forces beyond his control.53
כא
חלה השני או נאנס עושה שליח אחר בב"ד אפילו מאה והאחרון אומר שליח בית דין אני ונותנו לה. אע"פ שמת השליח הראשון. ומפני מה צריך בית דין מפני שהוא צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. אבל אם נתקיים הגט בחותמיו אע"פ שנתנו שליח לשליח אפילו מאה בינם לבין עצמם עד שהגיע הגט לידה הרי זה כשר. ואע"פ שלא פירש הבעל ולא אמר לו שלחו ביד אחר אם תאנס אם חלה או נאנס הרי זה משלחו:
22
Whenever a person appoints an agent, the agent does not have to be present in court with him. Even if the agent is not present, he may tell [the court]: "So and so is my agent."54 Similarly, an agent may appoint an agent when the latter is not present. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner].
כב
כל העושה שליח אינו צריך שיהא השליח עמו בב"ד. אלא אומר להם הרי פלוני שלוחי ואפילו שלא בפניו. וכן השליח עושה שליח אחר שלא בפניו אפילו הן מאה:
23
A husband [may appoint] his wife [as an agent to transport her get to another place]. After having it written and signed in her presence, he gives her the get and tells her: "You are an agent to bring it to the court of so and so. They will appoint an agent, who will give you this get and thus effect the divorce."
Should the woman say: "It was written and signed in my presence," [when delivering the get to the court], her statements are accepted.55 [The court] should take the get from her and give it to the agent so that he can give it to her as the husband instructed.
כג
האיש שנתן גט לאשתו ונכתב ונחתם בפניה ואמר לה הרי את שלוחתי להולכה עד בית דין פלוני והם יעמידו שליח ויתנו ליך גט זה ותתגרשי בו הרי זו נאמנת לומר בפניהם בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם והם נוטלין אותו ונותנין אותו לשליח ליתנו לה כמאמר הבעל:
24
When does the above apply? When the husband [explicitly] made this stipulation. But if this stipulation is not made, but instead the husband [merely] gave her the get and it is in her possession, she is not required to make any statements [to the court]. We assume that she is divorced, for she is in possession of a get that is written according to law and that is signed by witnesses.
Although we do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, and [their authenticity] has not been verified, we do not suspect that [the woman] forged them, for she would not cause her own ruin.56
Moreover, it is considered as if the witnesses who signed the get had testified in court, until a protest is raised. Therefore, we assume that the get was written according to law and [grant the woman permission to] marry, as we assume that a get brought by an agent [in Eretz Yisrael] is acceptable until the husband raises a protest or until he brings proof that it is a forgery or that it is void.
For if we had suspicions concerning these matters and the like, we would have to suspect that perhaps when a husband gave a get in our presence, he nullified it before he gave it; perhaps the witnesses who sign it are unacceptable, causing it to be regarded as a forgery; or perhaps it was not written for the sake [of the man or the woman being divorced]. Just as we do not entertain suspicions concerning these factors and assume that the get [is acceptable] until it is discovered that it is void, so too, we do not entertain suspicions concerning an agent or a woman when a get is in their possession. [The rationale is] that the laws governing prohibitions differ from those governing financial transactions.57
כד
במה דברים אמורים כשהתנה עליה הבעל תנאי זה אבל אם לא התנה עליה אלא נתן לה גיטה והרי הגט יוצא מתחת ידה אינה צריכה לומר כלום והרי היא בחזקת מגורשת. הואיל וגט שבידה כתוב כהלכתו והעדים חתומים עליו. ואע"פ שאין אנו מכירין כתב אותן העדים ולא נתקיים אין חוששין לה שמא זייפה אותו שהרי אינה מקלקלת על עצמה. ועוד שהעדים החתומים על הגט הרי הן כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב"ד עד שיהא שם מערער. לפיכך נעמיד הגט בחזקתו ותנשא. ואין חוששין שמא ימצא מזוייף. כמו שנעמיד הגט בחזקת כשר כשיביא אותו השליח עד שיערער הבעל או עד שיביא ראיה שהוא מזוייף או בטל. שאם נחוש לדברים אלו וכיוצא בהן כך היה לנו לחוש לגט שיתן הבעל בפנינו שמא ביטלו ואח"כ נתנו. או שמא עדים פסולין חתמו בו והרי הוא כמזוייף מתוכו. או שמא שלא לשמה נכתב. וכשם שאין חוששין לזה וכיוצא בו אלא נעמידנו על חזקתו עד שיודע שהוא בטל כך לא נחוש לא לשליח ולא לאשה עצמה שהגט יוצא מתחת ידה שאין דיני האיסורין כדיני הממונות:
FOOTNOTES
1.
Eretz Yisrael is singled out because Jewish courts frequently held sessions there, and it was feasible to verify the signatures of the witnesses to the get. In contrast, the courts in the diaspora held sessions less frequently, and verifying the signature of witnesses was a far more formidable task. Therefore, different laws apply, as stated in Halachah 5. In the present age, the laws applying to sending gittin in the diaspora are also followed in Eretz Yisrael. (See Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Even HaEzer 142:1.)
2.
More particularly, according to the Rambam, only one witness is necessary, because the agent himself may serve as the second witness.
3.
If the signatures of the witnesses can be verified, the husband's protests are ignored. Once the witnesses sign the get, it is considered as if they have testified in court, and the husband's statements are of no avail.
4.
See the Beit Shmuel 142:5, which quotes a difference of opinion among the commentaries whether or not the Rambam maintains that the husband's protest causes the get to be considered void. The consequence of this difference of opinion is the status of the children born out of a second marriage. Are they definitely considered to be illegitimate, or is this a point of doubt?
5.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam considers the get to be unacceptable because the fact that the husband protests the authenticity of the get and the woman is unable to verify the signatures causes us to question the matter. Since the woman was regarded as married, her status cannot be changed until she receives a get that is not open to doubt.
The Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 141) explains that although we assume that the woman has not been divorced, we do not know this with absolutely certainty. Hence, if she is consecrated by another man after receiving this get, she must be divorced by this second husband. Similarly, there are other authorities who maintain that the status of the divorce is doubtful.
6.
For in this instance there is no way to verify the signature of the witnesses.
7.
I.e., if the woman remarries, she will be committing adultery, and hence, she will be forbidden to remain married to her first husband. Nor will she be permitted to remain married to her second husband. Since they were involved in an adulterous relationship, they are forbidden to marry.
8.
I.e., just as a mother-in-law may not bring a get for her daughter-in-law, a daughter-in-law may not bring a get for her mother-in-law.
9.
Despite the fact that this woman has been divorced and remarried, we assume that she still harbors bad feelings towards the woman with whom she shared her previous husband and might desire to create difficulties for her.
10.
I.e., a woman who is married to her husband's brother. If the woman's husband died without children, her husband's brother would be obligated to marry her to fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum. Thus, the two women could ultimately become married to the same man.
11.
Although in this instance the mitzvah of yibbum would not apply because the two sisters are forbidden to marry the same man, our Sages did not differentiate when imposing this restriction.
12.
If, however, there is nothing preventing the agent from carrying out his agency, he may not appoint another agent. For we assume that a husband would object to the substitution (Gittin 29a).
13.
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 6, Halachah 4, there are opinions that differ and require the appointment of an agent to be observed by witnesses. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:11) favors the Rambam's view with regard to the appointment of the agent himself, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:40) follows the other opinions with regard to the agent's appointment of a second agent. In practice, the present custom is to have the appointment witnessed.
14.
For the husband, and not the previous agent, is the source of empowerment for the final agent.
15.
Generally, the verification of the signature of witnesses on a legal document requires two witnesses. In this instance, however, an exception was made, and the statements of one individual are accepted.
The rationale for this exception can be explained as follows: According to Scriptural law, there is no need for the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document to be verified. This requirement was instituted by our Sages. And in order to prevent a woman from having difficulties in obtaining a divorce, they relaxed that requirement and accepted the statements of the agent (Gittin 3a).
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 142:7) quotes opinions that rule that the phrase "It was written and signed in my presence" must be recited in its Hebrew original, B'fanai nichtav uv'fanai nechtam; a translation is not sufficient.
16.
I.e., we do not suspect that the witnesses were gentiles and that the get is void. For it has been customary for Jews living in the diaspora to adopt gentile names (Tosafot, Gittin 11b).
If, however, the probability is small that a Jew would use such a name, e.g., Nickolas or Patrick, there are authorities who are more stringent. See Beit Shmuel 130:30.
17.
Once the statements of the agent are accepted by the court, they are given the same weight as if they had been made by two witnesses. Therefore, the protest of the husband is of no consequence (Gittin 9a). If, however, the husband brings two witnesses who testify that the get is a forgery, their word - and not that of the agent - is accepted (Halachah 9).
18.
Our suspicion is that these women would forge a get to cause the wife to be forbidden to remained married to both husbands, and that the forgery will be easily discovered, because her first husband will protest the legitimacy of the get. When the agent herself must say "The get was written and signed in my presence," the first husband's protest will not be accepted, and the woman will be allowed to remain married to her second husband. As such, the forgery will not achieve its desired result.
19.
Our Sages accepted the statements of the agent as equivalent to those of two witnesses even when he was not required to have made them (Gittin 6b). Note the comments of the Maggid Mishneh, who questions whether this also applies with regard to questions of monetary law - e.g., the payment of the woman's marriage contract.
20.
The woman might think that the divorce is effective upon receipt of the get and may remarry, without being aware of the difficulties involved.
21.
More particularly, in this matter the agent can serve in three capacities: 1) as the agent to give the get, 2) as a witness to verify the signatures of the witnesses, and 3) as a judge declaring that the signatures have been verified. This is possible because, as explained above, the verification of witnesses is a requirement of Rabbinic law. In matters of Scriptural law, a witness may not serve as a judge. (See also Halachah 19.)
22.
I.e., disqualified by the Rabbis. It is not, however, void according to Scriptural law (Maggid Mishneh). According to the general principles mentioned by the Rambam (Chapter 10, Halachah 2), if the woman remarries in such an instance, she is not obligated to leave her second husband. The Tur (Even HaEzer 142) quotes opinions that differ and require her to leave her second husband, even if her first husband does not protest. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 142:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.
23.
See the notes on Halachah 1.
24.
E.g., two witnesses who testify that the get is a forgery.
25.
As stated in Hilchot Terumot 1:7, the northern boundary of Eretz Yisrael was the Amanon Mountains, a range in Northern Lebanon, far above the position of contemporary Beirut. The southern boundary was the Nile river. All islands within the imaginary line drawn from one point on the Mediterranean to the other are considered to be part of Eretz Yisrael.
26.
In the Talmudic era, Babylonia was a center of Torah study and there would be students traveling from all the cities to and from the central yeshivot in Sura, Neharde'a and Pumbedita. Hence, it was possible to find witnesses to verify the authenticity of the signatures on a get (Gittin 6a).
27.
Regardless of whether the get was given in another place in the diaspora or in Eretz Yisrael, the signature of the witnesses cannot be easily verified, and hence the agent is required to make these statements.
28.
If the get is given in Eretz Yisrael, the signatures of the witnesses can be verified, and hence the agent is not required to make these statements.
29.
The fundamental element to be observed by the agent is the signature of the get by the witnesses. For as long as the scribe wrote a portion of the get lishmah, for the sake of the man and the woman getting divorced, it is sufficient (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:1).
Note the Yadav Shel Moshe, who questions why the Rambam concerns himself with the issue of lishmah. On the difference of opinion between Rabbah and Ravva regarding the reason for the agent having to say: "It was written and signed in my presence," the Rambam follows the opinion of Ravva, who states that the problem is not lishmah, but rather the verification of the signatures of the witnesses.
30.
Rashi, Gittin 15a, interprets this as referring to the line that contains the man's name, the woman's name and the date. Tosafot interprets it as referring to the first line of the get. The Beit Shmuel 142:28 explains that the Rambam accepts neither of these opinions, but means any given line of the get.
31.
If that were the case, the get would not be written lishmah.
32.
For the confirmation of the get must follow the directives outlined by our Sages in their entirety or rely on the verification of the signatures of the witnesses (Tosafot, Gittin 15b).
33.
Since the decree of our Sages was not fulfilled, the only alternative is to verify the signatures of the witnesses.
34.
I.e., the agent says that the get was written, and one signed in his presence, and he and another person verify the signature of the second witness.
35.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 142) differs with this ruling. He agrees that in contrast to a get brought by one agent, a get brought by two agents may be given to the woman without their saying, "It was written and signed in our presence." Nevertheless, the Tur maintains that if the husband protests the authenticity of the get, the signatures of the witnesses must be verified.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 142:18) follows the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah quotes that of the Tur.
36.
This law applies only when the agents are able to serve as witnesses in court. If, however, they are related to the husband or the wife, or would be disqualified for other reasons, they are required to say, "It was written and signed in our presence."
37.
Rashi (Gittin 16b) appears to imply that both agents must be physically holding the get together. The Rashba differs [and this opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 142:18)] and states all that is necessary is for the agents to state that they were both appointed by the husband and given the get. The Rashba extends this leniency and states that even if only one agent was appointed by the husband, if another person witnessed his appointment and traveled with him, it is not necessary for the agent to say "It was written and signed in my presence."
38.
As mentioned above, according to the interpretation accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, we are not speaking about a second agent, but another person who accompanied the agent.
39.
This is referring to a third individual, and not one of the agents.
40.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the statement, "It was written in my presence," is unnecessary. Since two witnesses testify that they observed the signing of the get, they have verified the signatures of the witnesses. The Rambam mentions this instance, only because he is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (Gittin 2:1). And the Mishnah mentions this only as a literary device, so that the wording in its different clauses are parallel.
41.
Even if the two individuals who speak with regard to the signing of the get are not agents, their statements verify the authenticity of the signatures, making it a valid legal document.
42.
This wording implies that if the woman remarried after this divorce, she may remain married to her second husband. Rabbenu Asher and others rule more stringently, and maintain that in such a situation, the woman must be divorced by her second husband.
43.
Even after the signatures of the witnesses have been verified, the get should be taken from the woman and returned to her in the presence of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
44.
From the Rambam's wording, it appears that it is not sufficient for the witness to write these words out. Although a person who cannot speak and who witnessed the death of a woman's husband is allowed to write out his testimony (Chapter 13, Halachah 28), there is no alternative in that situation. In these circumstances, there is an alternative: to have the signatures of the witnesses verified (Kessef Mishneh).
45.
Gittin 23a states that when an agent is blind, he must be able to recognize the woman by the sound of her voice. It is not sufficient for others to identify her for him. When an agent can see, however, he need not know the woman's identity and may rely on the statements of others (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 142:11).
46.
Hilchot Edut 9:12 states that a blind person may not serve as a witness, and Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:9 states that such a person may not serve as a judge. Hilchot Edut 9:2 states that a woman may not serve in these capacities. Similarly, if the agent is related to the man or the woman, he is incapable of serving as a judge and three witnesses are necessary (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 142:4).
47.
See Halachot 5 and 7 and notes.
48.
It is sufficient for him to appear before two judges, because he can serve as the third judge himself (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 142:9).
49.
As opposed to the situation described in Halachah 4, the agent cannot appoint a second agent himself, because he is required to state in a court of law that the get was written and signed in his presence.
50.
The wording of the Rambam might be understood as implying that the agency is entrusted to the second agent by the court. This, however, is an incorrect inference, for it is the first agent who appoints the subsequent agent. This appointment must, however, be performed in a court to ensure that everything necessary to validate the get is performed. (See Rivash, Responsum 318.)
51.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 142:9) quotes the Rivash as ruling that, if sending a second get would be difficult, it is acceptable for the second agent to bring the get, even though he was not appointed in court, provided he brings a writ of authorization from the first agent.
52.
The reason the appointment of the latter agents must be made in a court is that the signatures of the witnesses have not been verified. By stating that his appointment was made in a court of law, every agent assures the court that the correct process has been followed regarding this get.
53.
If, however, there are no factors preventing the agent from discharging his agency, he may not appoint another agent unless the husband explicitly gave him the authority to do so (Maggid Mishneh).
54.
The Rivash (Responsum 53) differs with this ruling and maintains that if the second agent does not hear the first agent say: "It was written and signed in my presence," he must be given a writ of appointment. Otherwise, he may not serve in this capacity. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 142:10) quotes the Rambam's ruling - and indeed expands upon it, allowing the agent to give the court the authority to appoint any agent they desire. The Ramah quotes the ruling of the Rivash.
55.
She must, however, make these statements for the divorce to be effective. Our Sages made this requirement in order not to differentiate between one agency and another (Rashba, commenting on Gittin 24a).
56.
It is likely that a forgery would ultimately be discovered, and she would then be forbidden to remain married to her second husband, nor would she be permitted to return to her first husband.
The Maggid Mishneh draws a connection between this halachah and Chapter 12, Halachah 2, which states that the statements of a woman who produces a get are accepted, even though the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to the get has not been verified. The Ra'avad in his gloss on Hilchot Avadim 6:7 differs (see also his gloss to Chapter 12, Halachah 2). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 142:13-14) quotes the opinions of both the Rambam and the Ra'avad. See the Rivash (Responsum 385).
57.
With regard to financial transactions, a person's statements are not accepted if he has an interest in the matter, unless he substantiates them with proof. Therefore, if a person gives a servant a deed of release that states that he has been freed and has been granted his master's possessions, his word is accepted with regard to his freedom. With regard to the possessions, however, he is required to substantiate his statements by verifying the authenticity of the witnesses to the deed (Hilchot Avadim 7:2).
Gerushin - Chapter Eight
1
When [a man] divorces [his wife] according to a conditional arrangement, and the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is effective. If the condition is not fulfilled, the divorce is not effective. All the laws governing conditional agreements have been explained in Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 6.1
There it is explained that when [a man] divorces [his wife] according to a conditional arrangement, and the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is effective from the time the condition is fulfilled, and not from the time the get is given to her.
As such, a husband may nullify a get, add to his conditions or add a further condition, until the original condition is fulfilled although [the woman] has already been given the get.
If the husband dies [before the condition is fulfilled],2 or the get is lost or consumed by fire before the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is not effective.3 A priori, [the woman] should not remarry until the condition is fulfilled.4 If, however, she has already married, she need not leave [her second husband],5 unless she is no longer able to fulfill [the condition].6 [For since] the condition is nullified [the divorce is void.]
There it is explained that if [the husband] tells [his wife]: "You are divorced from the present time - or from today - on the following condition," or "You are divorced on the condition7 that this and this be done," when the condition is fulfilled the divorce becomes effective retroactively from the time the get reaches the woman.
Therefore, once the get reaches the woman's possession, [the husband] can no longer nullify the get,8 add to his conditions or add a further condition. If the get is lost or consumed by fire, or even if the husband dies before the condition is fulfilled, she should fulfill the condition after his death, and the divorce is considered effective from the time the get was given to her.
A priori, [the woman] may remarry even before the condition is fulfilled.9 We do not suspect that she will not fulfill the condition,10 because it was stated using the wording "From this time" or "On the condition that...."
א
המגרש על תנאי אם נתקיים התנאי הרי זו מגורשת ואם לא נתקיים התנאי אינה מגורשת. וכבר בארנו בפ"ו מהלכות אישות משפטי התנאין כולם. ושם נתבאר שהמגרש על תנאי כשיתקיים התנאי תהיה מגורשת בשעה שיתקיים. לא בשעת נתינת הגט לידה. לפיכך יש לבעל לבטל הגט או להוסיף על תנאו או להתנות על תנאי אחר כל זמן שלא נתקיים התנאי הראשון אע"פ שהגיע גט לידה. ואם מת הבעל או אבד הגט או נשרף קודם שיתקיים התנאי אינה מגורשת. ולכתחלה לא תנשא עד שיתקיים התנאי. ואם נשאת לא תצא אלא אם כן לא נשאר בידה לקיימו. שהרי בטל התנאי. ושם נתבאר שאם אמר לה הרי את מגורשת מעכשיו או מהיום על תנאי כך וכך. או שאמר לה הרי את מגורשת על מנת כך וכך. כשיתקיים התנאי תהיה מגורשת משעת נתינת הגט לידה. לפיכך אינו יכול לבטל הגט ולא להוסיף על תנאו משהגיע גט לידה. ואם אבד או נשרף אפילו מת הבעל קודם שיתקיים התנאי הרי זו מקיימת התנאי אחר מותו וכבר נתגרשה משעת נתינת הגט לידה ויש לה להנשא לכתחלה אע"פ שעדיין לא נתקיים התנאי. ואין חוששין שמא לא יתקיים הואיל והיה התנאי במעכשיו או בעל מנת:
2
Whenever [a man] divorces [his wife] conditionally - whether he states, "from this time onward," or makes [a repeated statement of the condition, as required] - he should not enter into privacy with his wife throughout the entire time the condition remains unfulfilled.
Instead, [all his dealings with her should be] in the presence of [at least one] witness. Even a servant or a maid-servant can serve this purpose, with the exception of her [private] maid-servant or her young son. For she is not embarrassed to enter into marital relations in the presence of these people.
It is well known that if [the husband] enters into privacy [with his wife] in the presence of two witnesses at the same time, the status of the divorce is doubtful, even if the condition was fulfilled. [We suspect] that he engaged in marital relations [with her],11 and nullified the get,12 as will be explained in these laws.
ב
כל המגרש על תנאי בין שאמר מעכשיו בין שאמר אם יהיה ואם לא יהיה הרי זה לא יתיחד עם אשתו כל זמן שלא נתקיים התנאי אלא בפני עד. ואפילו עבד ואפילו שפחה חוץ משפחתה או בנה קטן מפני שאינה בושה מלשמש בפניהם. והדבר ידוע שאם נתיחד עמה בפני שני עדים כאחד אפילו נתקיים התנאי אח"כ הרי זו ספק מגורשת. שמא בעלה ובטל הגט כמו שיתבאר בהלכות אלו:
3
How should a man divorce [his wife] conditionally? He should not say: "Write a get for my wife on this condition," or "Write a get and give it to her on this condition." Needless to say, he should not write in the get: "So and so divorces so and so on the [following] condition."13
What procedure should instead be followed? He should instruct the scribe to write [a get] and the witnesses to sign. They should write an acceptable get that does not mention any condition at all. Afterwards, he should give her the get and tell her: "This is your get..." or "Behold you are divorced on the following condition." Or he should tell [the witnesses] or his agent: "Give her this get on the following condition."14
ג
כיצד מגרש אדם על תנאי. לא שיאמר כתבו גט לאשתי על תנאי זה. או כתבו ותנו לה על תנאי. ואין צריך לומר שלא יכתוב בתוך הגט על תנאי זה גירש פלוני את פלונית. אלא כיצד עושה אומר לסופר לכתוב ולעדים לחתום וכותבין גט כשר בלא שום תנאי בעולם. ואחר כך נותן לה הגט ואומר לה הרי זה גיטך או הרי את מגורשת בזה על מנת כך וכך. או יאמר להם או לשליח תנו לה גט זה על מנת כך וכך:
4
If [a husband] had a condition15 written in the get after the essential portion of the get16 was written, the get is acceptable, regardless of whether [the condition] was written before the signature of the witnesses or after their signature.
If, however, [the condition] was written before the essential portion of the get - even if he used the wording, "on the following condition"17 - the status of the divorce is doubtful, for the husband retains rights in the essential matter of the get. Similarly, if he verbally stated a condition before the essential portion of the get was written, the status of the divorce is doubtful.18
ד
כתב התנאי בגט אחר שגמר לכתוב תורף הגט הרי זה גט כשר. בין שכתבו קודם חתימת העדים בין שכתבו לאחר חתימת העדים. אבל אם כתבו קודם תורף הגט אפילו כתב על מנת כך וכך הרי זו ספק גירושין שהרי נשאר לו זכות בגופו של גט. וכן אם התנה על פה קודם כתיבת התורף הרי זה ספק גירושין:
5
[These rules apply when a man] divorces his wife and [makes the following conditions] whether verbally or in writing, after the essential portion [of the get] has been written,19. If he tells her: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man aside from so and so," or "...with the exception of so and so," [the ruling would depend on the identity of the individual specified].
If that individual is a gentile, a servant or a person with whom the woman is forbidden to engage in marital relations - e.g., her father, her brother, his father or his brother - the get is acceptable.20 If, however, the individual is one who could consecrate her [as a wife], the get is void,21 even if there is a negative prohibition [that is not punishable by death - neither at the hand of God nor the court - involved in such relations]22 or that individual is a minor.23 [The rationale is that by making such a condition,] the husband retained certain rights with regard to the divorce, and [the bond between the couple] is not [entirely] severed.
If [the individual mentioned] is the husband of the wife's sister, the status of the divorce is in doubt. For although at present relations between the wife and that man are forbidden, if her sister dies, she will become permitted to marry him.
ה
המגרש את אשתו והתנה עליה בין בכתב אחר התורף בין על פה אחר התורף ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מאיש פלוני או אלא לאיש פלוני ונתן לה הגט על תנאי זה אם היה אותו האיש עכו"ם או עבד או אסור עליה משום ערוה כגון אביה ואחיה או אביו או אחיו הרי זה גט כשר. ואם היה אותו האיש שיש לו בה קידושין אע"פ שהוא מחייבי לאוין ואע"פ שהוא קטן אינו גט. שהרי שייר בגט ואין זה כריתות. היה בעל אחותה שאע"פ שהוא היום אסור עליה משום ערוה אם תמות אחותה יהיה מותר לה הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
6
The status of the divorce is in doubt24 when [a husband divorces his wife and] tells her: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man, aside from a man who will be born in the future, who does not exist at present," "...aside from promiscuous relationships" - i.e., it is as if he said: "Behold, you are permitted to marry any man, but with regard to promiscuous relations, it is as if you remain forbidden like a married woman."
[This ruling also applies if he tells her:] "You are permitted to any man who will engage in relations with you in the ordinary manner, but with regard to anal intercourse, you remain prohibited," "You are permitted [to marry] any man, aside from one who consecrates you with a legal document" - i.e, the woman may be consecrated by [a gift of] money or via sexual relations, but if one consecrates her with a legal document, she is forbidden like a married woman - or "You are permitted [to marry] any man, with the exception of [the right to] nullify your vows" - i.e., [I] retain none of the rights of the marriage relationship except [the right to] nullify your vows; in that regard, it is as if you remained my wife.
[Similarly, if the husband desires that the woman be considered as if she were married with regard to her right] to partake of terumah,25 or with regard to his right to inherit her property if she dies [in his lifetime, the status of the divorce is in doubt].
ו
אמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ ממי שיולד שאינו עתה בעולם. או חוץ מזנותיך כלומר תהיה מותרת להנשא לכל אדם אבל לזנות הרי את באיסור אשת איש. או הרי את מותרת לכל מי שיבא עליך כדרך כל הארץ אבל שלא כדרכך הרי את באיסוריך. או הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ ממקדש בשטר. כלומר שהיא מותרת להתקדש בכסף ובביאה אבל בשטר הרי את באיסור אשת איש. או הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מהפרת נדריך. כלומר לא נשאר לי עליך שום אישות חוץ מהפרת נדריך שאת אשתי לענין הפרת נדרים. או לענין אכילת תרומה. או לענין ירושה שאם מתה יירשנה. בכל אחד מאלו הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
7
[If a husband] tells [his wife]: "You are permitted [to marry] any man aside from Reuven and Shimon," and then tells her: "You are permitted [to marry] Reuven or Shimon," the divorce is acceptable.26 For he has nullified his condition, permitting his wife [to marry] the men [concerning whom] the condition was made.
ז
אמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מראובן ושמעון וחזר ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לראובן ושמעון, הרי זו מגורשת. שהרי בטל התנאי שהאנשים שהתנה בהן התירן לה:
8
[If, after telling his wife that she is permitted to marry any man aside from Reuven and Shimon, the husband] tells her: "You are permitted [to marry] Reuven," the divorce is void, because he has not nullified the condition [preventing her from marrying] Shimon.
If he tells her: "You are permitted to [marry] Shimon," or "You are even permitted to [marry] Shimon," the status of the divorce is in doubt. We suspect that perhaps he permitted her only to Shimon, and she is still forbidden to Reuven. By saying "even to Shimon," he meant "to everyone, even to Shimon." [Nevertheless, the divorce is not void, for] perhaps he permitted her to everyone, and by saying "even to Shimon," he meant "to Shimon and also to Reuven." [This is plausible,] for Shimon was mentioned after Reuven in his condition.
ח
אמר לה הרי את מותרת לראובן הרי זו אינה מגורשת שהרי לא ביטל תנאו של שמעון. אמר לה הרי את מותרת לשמעון או הרי את מותרת אף לשמעון הרי זו ספק גירושין שמא לא התירה אלא לשמעון וראובן באיסורו עומד וזה שאמר אף לשמעון כלומר לכל אדם אף לשמעון. או שמא התירה לכל וזה שאמר אף לשמעון והוא הדין לראובן ששמעון סמוך היה לראובן בתנאו:
9
If [a husband] makes a condition, saying; "Today you are not my wife, but tomorrow you will be my wife," the divorce is not effective.27 Although the connection between the couple is severed on the day [of the get, it is renewed afterwards]. For this reason, in the wording of the get, is written the phrase: "from the present day onward."
ט
התנה עליה ואמר היום אין את אשתי ולמחר את אשתי אינה מגורשת ואע"פ שכרת בינו לבינה היום. לפיכך כותבין בגיטין מן היום הזה ולעולם:
10
[If a husband tells his wife:] "This is your get on the condition that you never drink wine for the rest of your life," the divorce is not effective, for [the relationship between them] has not been severed.28
If the condition states "for as long as I live" or "for as long as so and so lives," the divorce is effective, for the relationship between the couple is severed. When that person dies, [the woman] will no longer have any connection with [her previous husband].
י
הרי זה גיטיך על מנת שלא תשתי יין כל ימי חייכי אינו גט שאין זה כריתות. כל ימי חיי או כל ימי [חיי] פלוני הרי זה גט שהרי כרת בינו לבינה ולא תשאר לו עליה רשות כשימות אותו פלוני:
11
[If a husband tells his wife:] "This is your get on the condition that you do not go to your father's house for 30 days, the divorce is effective. "...That you never go to your father's house," the divorce is not effective, for [the relationship between them] has not been severed.
[Similarly, if a husband] tells [his wife:] "This is your get on the condition that you never eat meat," or "...that you never drink wine," the divorce is not effective, for [the relationship between them] has not been severed. "...[that you not eat meat or drink wine] for 30 days, the divorce is effective.
יא
הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך עד שלשים יום הרי זה גט. שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם אינו גט שהרי אין זה כריתות. לפיכך האומר הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא תאכלי בשר (זה) לעולם. שלא תשתי יין (זה) לעולם אינו גט שאין זה כריתות. עד שלשים יום הרי זה גט:
12
[If a husband tells his wife:] "This is your get on the condition that you never marry so and so," the divorce is not effective.29 To what can this be compared? to his telling her: "This is your get on the condition that you never drink wine," "...that you never go to your father's home," or "[that you not go to your father's home] for the rest of your life."30
If, however, he tells her: "[This is your get] on the condition that you do not marry so and so for fifty years,"31 the divorce is effective; she may not marry the person during the time specified.32 If she marries him, the divorce is nullified retroactively.33
If [the woman] engages in promiscuous sexual relations with the man specified, any child born to her is legitimate, and the divorce remains acceptable. For [the husband's] condition mentioned only marriage.
יב
הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא תנשאי לפלוני אינו גט. הא למה זה דומה לאומר לה הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא תשתי יין לעולם או שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם או כל ימי חייכי. אבל אם אמר לה על מנת שלא תנשאי לפלוני עד חמשים שנה הרי זה גט ולא תנשא לו כל זמן שהתנה. ואם נשאת בטל הגט למפרע. זנתה עמו הולד כשר והגט כשר שלא התנה אלא על הנשואין:
13
[If a husband tells his wife:] "This is your get on the condition that you marry so and so," if she marries him [the divorce is effective], as it would be if other conditions were involved. Nevertheless, our Sages said that she should not marry either the man specified or any other man.
She should not marry the man specified, lest the people say: "They are giving their wives as presents to each other."34 Nor should she marry anyone else, for the get is effective only when the condition is fulfilled.
If she transgresses and marries the man specified, she need not be divorced. If she marries another person before she marries the man specified, the get is nullified, and she must leave her second husband. Any child she bears [the second husband] is illegitimate. He must, however, divorce her with a get.35
יג
הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתנשאי לפלוני אם נשאת לו הרי זה גט כשאר כל התנאים. אבל אמרו חכמים לא תנשא לא לאותו פלוני ולא לאחר. לאותו פלוני לא תנשא שמא יאמרו נשיהן נותנין במתנה זה לזה. ולאחר לא תנשא שאינו גט אלא בקיום התנאי. עברה ונשאת לאותו פלוני לא תצא. נשאת לאחר קודם שתנשא לאותו פלוני בטל הגט ותצא והולד ממזר וצריכה גט משני:
14
[If a husband tells his wife:] "Behold, this is your get, but the paper belongs to me," the divorce is not effective, for [the relationship between them] has not been severed.36 "...On the condition that you give me the paper," the divorce is effective, [provided] she gives [him the paper].37
יד
הרי זה גיטך והנייר שלי אינה מגורשת שאין זה כריתות. על מנת שתתני לי את הנייר הרי זה גט ותתן:
15
If he engraved a get on a plate of gold and gave it to her, telling her: "This is [both] your get and [the money due you by virtue of] your ketubah, [the divorce is] acceptable and she is considered to have received the money due her by virtue of her ketubah,38 provided the plate is worth the value of her ketubah. If it is not, he should compensate [for the difference].
טו
חקק הגט על טס של זהב ונתנו לה ואמר לה הרי זה גיטך וכתובתך כשר ונתקבלה כתובתה אם יש בטס כדי כתובתה ואם לאו ישלים כתובתה:
16
[The following rules apply when a man] divorces [his wife] conditionally, including a stipulation that causes the divorce to be considered void - e.g., that she never eat meat or drink wine for the rest of her life, or that she be free to marry any man with the exception of a particular individual, or that he mentioned other conditions before the essential portion of the get was written: If the condition was written in the get, and he rubbed it out and gave it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.39 If the condition was stated verbally,40 he should take the get from her and give it to her again without mentioning a condition, or mention a condition that is acceptable.
טז
כל המגרש על תנאי שמבטל הגט כגון שהתנה לה שלא תאכל בשר ולא תשתה יין כל ימי חייה. או שתהיה מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מפלוני. או שהתנה עליה שאר תנאים קודם כתיבת התורף. אם היה תנאו כתוב בגט וחזר ומחקו ונתנו לה הרי זו ספק מגורשת. ואם היה התנאי על פה הרי זה נוטל הגט ממנה וחוזר ונותנו לה בלא תנאי כלל או בתנאי כשר:
17
What is implied? [A man] gave a get to his wife and told her, "Behold, you are divorced with this [get] and are free [to marry] any man aside from so and so."41 If he took [the get] from her and gave it to her and said: "Behold you are free [to marry] any man," or "This is your get," the divorce is effective. The same applies in other similar situations.
יז
כיצד הרי שנתן גט לאשתו ואמר לה הרי את מגורשת בזה ומותרת לכל אדם חוץ מפלוני. אם נטלו ממנה וחזר ונתנו לה ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם או הרי זה גיטך הרי זו מגורשת וכן כל כיוצא בו:
18
When [a man] gives a get to his wife on the condition that she give him two hundred zuz, and afterwards establishes a second condition in the presence of witnesses that she serve his father for two years, his latter statement did not nullify his original one.42 Instead, it is as if he told her: "Fulfill one of the two conditions." If she desires, she may serve his father, or if she desires, she may give [him the money]. One of the witnesses to the first condition cannot join with one of the witnesses to the second condition [to testify that the get was given on a conditional basis].43
If, however, [the husband] made a condition that the woman must give him 200 zuz, and afterwards made a condition in the presence of two [witnesses] that she must give him 300 zuz, the condition of 200 has been nullified, and she must give [him] 300 zuz. The same principle applies in all similar situations.
יח
הנותן גט לאשתו על תנאי שתתן לו מאתים זוז וחזר והתנה עליה תנאי אחר בפני עדים שתשמש אביו שתי שנים. לא ביטלו דבריו האחרונים את הראשונים אלא הרי זה כאומר לה עשי אחד משני התנאים. רצת משמשת רצת נותנת. ואין אחד מן הראשונים ואחד מן האחרונים מצטרפין. אבל אם התנה עליה שתתן לו מאתים זוז וחזר והתנה בפני שנים שתתן לו שלש מאות זוז. כבר ביטל התנאי של מאתים וצריכה ליתן שלש מאות זוז וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
19
If [a husband] makes a condition that his wife must perform a specific activity without stating a duration of time, it is considered as if he stated that she should perform this activity for one day. For he did not specify any amount of time.
What is implied? If he told her: "This is your get on condition that you perform work for me," "...on condition that you serve my father," or "...on condition that you nurse my son," if she performs work for him or serves his father for one day or nurses his son for one day during the time when a child [usually] nurses - i.e., within his first 24 months [of life] - the get is effective.44If the son or the father dies before she nurses him or serves him, the get is not effective.45
יט
התנה עליה שתעשה דבר זה סתם הרי זה כמפרש יום אחד הואיל ולא פירש כמה זמן תעשה. כיצד אמר לה הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתעשי עמי מלאכה. על מנת שתשמשי את אבא. על מנת שתניקי את בני. אם עשתה עמו מלאכה או אם שמשה את אביו יום אחד או שהניקה בנו יום אחד בתוך הזמן שהבן יונק בו והוא בתוך ארבעה ועשרים חדש הרי זה גט. מת הבן או מת אביו קודם שתניק או שתשמש אינו גט:
20
If [the husband] tells her: "[This is your get] on condition that you nurse my son..." or "...serve my father for two years," [for the divorce to be effective] she must complete the time specified. If the son or the father dies within this period, or the father says: "I don't want you to serve me," the get is not effective, for the condition has not been fulfilled.46 The same principles apply in all similar situations.
כ
אמר לה על מנת שתניקי את בני או תשמשי את אבי שתי שנים. הרי זו משלמת הזמן שפירש. מת הבן או האב בתוך הזמן או שאמר האב אין רצוני שתשמשני אינו גט שהרי לא נתקיים התנאי וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
21
[The following rules apply when a husband] tells [his wife]: "[This is your get] on condition that you give me 200 zuz within 30 days." If she gives him [the money] within 30 days with his consent, the divorce is effective. If she gives [it] after 30 days, the divorce is not effective. If she gives it to him against his will, and he refuses to accept it, the divorce is unacceptable until he willingly accepts it.47
If he tells her within the 30 days, "I am willing to forego [the money on your behalf," the divorce is not effective, because the condition was not fulfilled.48 If he dies within the 30 days, since the 30 days are completed without her giving [him the money], the divorce is not effective.49
כא
הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז מכאן ועד שלשים יום. נתנה בתוך שלשים יום מדעתו הרי זו מגורשת. לאחר שלשים אינה מגורשת. נתנה לו בעל כרחו והוא אינו רוצה לקבל הרי זה גט פסול עד שתתן מדעתו. חזר ואמר לה בתוך השלשים יום הרי הן מחולין לך אינה מגורשת. שהרי לא נעשה התנאי. מת בתוך שלשים יום הואיל ושלמו השלשים יום ולא נתנה אינה מגורשת:
22
If he tells her, "[This is your get] on condition that you give me 200 zuz," without specifying a time period, and he dies before she gives [him the money], she cannot give [the sum] to his heirs; the condition was that it be given to him. [In this instance, however,] the get is not nullified [by the husband's death], since a definite time period was not specified.50 Therefore, even if the get was lost or ripped before he died, [the woman] should not marry another man until she performs the rite of chalitzah.
כב
אמר לה הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז ולא קבע זמן ומת קודם שתתן אינה יכולה ליתן ליורשיו שלא התנה עליה אלא שתתן לו. ולא בטל הגט שהרי לא קבע זמן. לפיכך אף על פי שאבד הגט או נקרע קודם שימות הרי זו לא תנשא לזר עד שתחלוץ:
23
[If the husband tells her:] "This is your get on condition that you give me this particular utensil," or "...this particular garment," and that utensil or garment is lost or stolen, even if she gives him 1000 zuz in compensation for [the desired object],51 the divorce is not effective until she gives him the specified utensil or garment, or until he nullifies the condition.52
כג
הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי כלי פלוני או בגד פלוני ואבד אותו כלי או אותו בגד או נגנב אע"פ שנתנה לו אלף זוז בדמיו אינו גט עד שתתן אותו כלי או אותו בגד עצמו או עד שיבטל התנאי:
24
[The following rules apply when a woman] is divorced conditionally, and another man consecrates her before the condition is fulfilled. If the condition is fulfilled [afterwards], she is consecrated.53 If, however, the condition is not fulfilled and the get is nullified,54 she does not require a get from the second husband,55 for [in this situation] she cannot be consecrated. If, however, she marries [a second husband], the condition is not fulfilled, and the get is nullified, she must also be divorced by the second [husband], as explained above.56
כד
מי שנתגרשה על תנאי וקדשה אחר קודם שיתקיים התנאי. אם נתקיים התנאי הרי זו מקודשת. ואם לא נתקיים התנאי ובטל הגט אינה צריכה גט משני שהרי אין קידושין תופסין בה. אבל אם נשאת ולא נתקיים התנאי ובטל הגט צריכה גט משני כמו שבארנו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Halachah 2 of that chapter, which explains that there are four rules that govern all conditional agreements:
a) the stipulation must be twofold [with both a positive and negative statement];
b) the positive aspect must be stated before the negative aspect;
c) the stipulation should be mentioned before the completion of the action that one desires to make conditional;
d) the stipulation must be something with which it is possible to comply.
If one of these rules was not kept when a conditional agreement was made, the stipulation is nullified; it is as if there were no condition at all. Note the details and explanations of these rules there.
2.
This is relevant if the couple is childless, and the woman is obligated to fulfill either the rite of yibbum or of chalitzah.
3.
With regard to the first clause, a get can be effective only when the husband granting the divorce is still alive. If he dies, the marriage bonds are already rent by his death. With regard to the latter clause, since the get takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled, the get itself must be intact at that time. If it is not, there is no medium through which the divorce takes effect (see Gittin 74a).
4.
Lest the husband die or the get be destroyed, and thus the divorce be nullified.
5.
The Rambam's ruling is clarified by his statements in Chapter 9, Halachah 5, in which he states that a conditional divorce begins when the get is given and is not concluded until the condition is fulfilled. This conception has aroused objections among the commentators, who maintain that until the condition is fulfilled, the woman is like any other married woman. She cannot be consecrated, and marital relations with her are considered adulterous. Although in his Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo supports the more stringent views, in his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:2), he appears to follow the Rambam's opinion (Beit Shmuel 143:2).
6.
E.g., her husband made a condition that she give an article to his father, and his father dies.
7.
I.e., the husband uses this expression rather than saying: "If you do such and such, the divorce is effective. If you do not do such and such, the divorce is not effective." The Ramah (Even HaEzer 144:3) and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 144:4) mention opinions that do not equate "on the condition that" with "from now onwards."
8.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 143:2) quotes opinions that maintain that even when a condition is stated using the wording "on the condition that," the husband has the right to nullify the get until the condition is fulfilled.
9.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) does not accept this ruling and declares that the woman should not remarry until the condition is fulfilled. There is, however, one exception: a condition that requires the woman to refrain from performing a particular activity before the divorce takes effect.
10.
I.e., because of the severe consequences this will bring upon her, we do not suspect that she will fail to do what is necessary to maintain the legitimacy of her second marriage.
11.
For entering into privacy with a woman in the presence of witnesses is considered equivalent to actual relations. (See Chapter 10, Halachah 18.)
12.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 19, which explains that when there is a possibility that a man has had marital relations with his divorcee, we assume that he consecrated her again, rather than conducting these relations in a licentious manner. (See also Chapter 9, Halachah 25.)
13.
This is unacceptable, as explained in the following halachah.
14.
See the Beit Shmuel 147:1, which states that in a situation of difficulty in which the husband cannot wait until the get is written, we rely on more lenient views that differ with the Rambam. According to these views, the husband may instruct the scribe and the witnesses to write a get in the usual manner and to give it to the agent and before it is written, instruct the agent to give it to the woman conditionally.
15.
I.e., a condition that is acceptable (Beit Shmuel 147:2).
16.
I.e., the man's name, the woman's name, the date and the sentence: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man," as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 17.
17.
I.e., using acceptable wording, as opposed to the wording described in the following halachah.
18.
This ruling is questioned by the commentaries. Gittin 84b states that such a get is pasul, "unacceptable." Unlike the Rambam, for whom this term has an explicit meaning (see Chapter 10, Halachah 20), in the Talmud the interpretation of the term is somewhat ambiguous. In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - the difficulty concerns a point of Torah law, and yet the Talmud did not rule the get to be void, he maintains that the status of the divorce is in doubt.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam interprets the ruling as dependent on the principle of bererah, that retroactively, when the condition is fulfilled, it becomes apparent that the get did sever the connection between the husband and the wife. Since our Sages did not determine whether or not the principle of bererah applies with regard to questions of Torah law, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Other authorities differ and maintain that if the condition was stated properly before the essential portion of the get was written and fulfilled, the get is acceptable. If the condition was written in the get itself, Tosafot, the Ramban and the Ra'avad maintain that the get is acceptable, while Rabbenu Nissim states that such a get is deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.
At the outset, all the authorities maintain that the rules stated by the Rambam should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 147:2) also quotes the Rambam's ruling that the status of the divorce is in doubt. In a case of hardship, however, the Beit Shmuel 147:2 states that the more lenient views can be relied upon.
19.
Needless to say, according to the Rambam, when any of the following conditions is binding, it invalidates the get if it was made or stated before the essential portion of the get was written. The difference between these conditions and those stated in the previous halachah is that those conditions can be fulfilled through a specific activity, and once they are fulfilled the marriage bond is severed entirely. The conditions mentioned in this halachah, by contrast, remain binding throughout the woman's life. Thus, her connection to her husband is never severed entirely.
The authorities which differ with the Rambam in the previous halachah, also differ in this instance, and maintain that if this condition is written in the get itself, the get is acceptable according to Scriptural law, but disqualified by Rabbinic decree. See Beit Shmuel 137:3.
20.
Because of the prohibitions involved, there is no possibility of the woman's establishing a marriage bond with these individuals (see Hilchot Ishut 4:14-15), and therefore, her husband's statements are of no consequence.
21.
Note, however, Chapter 10, Halachah 1. Rabbenu Nissim and other authorities rule more leniently and maintain that such a get is acceptable according to Scriptural law and was deemed unacceptable only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.
22.
In such instances, even though marital relations violate a prohibition, a marriage bond can be established (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.).
23.
For ultimately, the minor will attain majority. Rabbenu Chanan'el differs and states that with regard to a minor, the status of the divorce is doubtful. The difference of opinion is dependent on the text of Gittin 85b, of which two versions exist.
24.
In all the cases to follow, the divorce does not totally sever the relationship between the husband and the wife. Nevertheless, our Sages were not certain that the rights retained by the husband were sufficient to render the divorce void (Gittin 85a, Perishah, Even HaEzer 137).
25.
I.e., the husband is a priest, and while married his wife may partake of terumah, although she is the daughter of an Israelite.
26.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to an instance where the husband takes the get back from the woman and gives it to her again, making the latter statement. This conception is also reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 137:1).
The Tur (Even HaEzer 137) differs with the Rambam and maintains that in this instance the status of the divorce is in doubt. We suspect that perhaps the intent of his latter statement was to permit her to Reuven and Shimon, but to forbid her to everyone else. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 137:4) accepts the Tur's ruling. All authorities agree that if the husband says: "You are also permitted [to marry] Reuven or Shimon," the get is acceptable.
27.
Rabbenu Asher and the Rashba differ and maintain that in such an instance, the divorce is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 137:5) follows the view of Rabbenu Nissim, who maintains that the status of the divorce is in doubt.
28.
There is a factor, the prohibition against drinking wine, that always maintains the connection between them.
29.
The Rashba differs with this ruling, explaining that since the other person may die, this can be compared to an instance where the husband makes a condition that his wife not drink wine during the duration of another person's life. Just as that condition is considered to be having a limit, so too, should this condition be considered to be limited.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo defends the Rambam's ruling, explaining that in the instance at hand, the woman will never be able to marry the man specified in the condition. As such, the condition is not considered limited. In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:22), he quotes both opinions and states that the stringencies required by both views should be observed.
30.
I.e., the condition is one that binds a woman to her husband for her entire life.
31.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes a responsum of the Rashbatz that states that the intent is that the marriage will be forbidden for a period longer than the woman is expected to live. Thus, though the husband has in effect prohibited the woman from marrying the other man forever, since this is not explicitly stated, the condition is considered to be limited in scope.
32.
According to the Rambam, it appears that the woman is free to marry another man immediately, for we assume that she will abide by the condition, rather than place herself in a compromising situation. There are, however, other opinions that state that she is not allowed to remarry until the person specified dies. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:16) quotes both opinions without appearing to favor either one.
33.
I.e., it is considered as if the original marriage bond had never been severed. Any children born to her between the divorce and its nullification are deemed illegitimate.
34.
This would compromise the entire image of Jewish divorce. (See Rashi, Gittin 84a.)
35.
The requirement for the woman's second husband to divorce her is a Rabbinic decree, instituted lest people see a woman who appears married leave her husband without a get. According to Scriptural law, a get is not necessary (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad and the Tur (Even HaEzer 143) suggest that she can have the legitimacy of the children of her second husband restored retroactively by marrying the person specified in the first get after being divorced by her second husband. In this way, the condition will have been kept.
The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the husband's intent was that the woman should marry the man specified before marrying anyone else. (The commentaries cite a parallel to this ruling in Hilchot Mechirah 11:10.) The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:15) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Ramah follows that of the Ra'avad and the Tur.
36.
Since the husband maintains possession of the paper on which the get is written, the couple's marriage relationship has not been totally severed. Rashi (Gittin 75b) offers a different interpretation of this ruling.
37.
When she receives the get, the paper belongs to her. Afterwards, she willingly gives it back. This follows the principle that a present given on condition that it be returned is considered to be a present (Rashi, Gittin 20b).
38.
Gittin 20b explains that the fact that the same article serves two purposes - effecting the divorce and providing remuneration for the woman's marriage contract - does not prevent it from being effective.
39.
Since the get was written in an unacceptable manner, there is reason to maintain that the get can never be acceptable. This applies when the unacceptable condition was written before the essential portion of the get.
The wording used by the Rambam is, however, questionable. The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 9:1) and the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on this halachah use the word pasul "unacceptable," rather than "the status of the divorce is in doubt" to describe such a get. Perhaps here, the Rambam uses the term "the status of the divorce is in doubt," because, as cited above from the Rambam's responsa, according to the Rambam, the question in these situations is whether the get is written for the sake of severing the marriage bond. And this is a question of Scriptural law (Rav Kapach).
40.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this refers to a condition stated after the essential portion of the get was written. If such a condition was stated before the essential portion was written, the get is unacceptable, because it was not written with the intent of severing the marriage relationship. See Halachah 4 and notes.
41.
The Sages decreed that unless the get is returned, it not effective, even if the condition was nullified. Since the original giving of such a get has a permanent effect - the woman is forbidden to marry a priest (or to remain married to her husband, if he is a priest), as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 1 - the only way such a condition can be nullified is by returning the get to the husband, and having him give it again without any condition.
The Beit Shmuel 147:6 states that this law applies only with regard to a condition that prevents her from marrying a particular man that was stated after the essential portion of the get was written. When a condition that nullifies the get was written before the essential portion of the get was written, the get is void and cannot be rectified. When a stipulation such as "on the condition that you do not drink wine for the rest of your life" was made after the essential portion of the get was written, there is no need to take the get back from the woman. It is sufficient to nullify the stipulation.
42.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the condition was stated in a twofold statement: "If you do such and such, the get is effective, but if you do not do such and such, the get is not effective." In such instances, since the divorce is not effective until the condition is fulfilled, the husband may alter the condition. When, however, a get is given "on condition that... ," the divorce is retroactively effective from the time the get was given. Hence, the condition cannot be changed.
Rashi (Gittin 76a) offers a different interpretation of this passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:10) follows the Rambam's interpretation, while the Ramah follows that of Rashi.
43.
For each of the conditions is considered to be a separate matter.
44.
This ruling reflects an interesting halachic judgment on the Rambam's part. Gittin 75b explains that the ruling cited by the Rambam was authored by Rav Ashi. Although the Gemara poses questions on Rav Ashi's view that are left unresolved, since his position was not refuted, according to the Rambam, the halachah follows his view.
The Tur follows a different view and maintains that the woman must serve her husband's father for the duration of the father's life and nurse the son for the entire two-year period. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:8) follows the Rambam's view, while the Ramah cites that of the Tur.
45.
For the condition has not been fulfilled.
46.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 143) differs and states that since the woman did not prevent the condition from being fulfilled, the get is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:8) does not accept this view. The Ramah states that the more stringent view should be followed.
47.
There is a difference of opinion among our Sages regarding whether a person who forces a colleague to accept something is considered to have given it to him or not. Although the view that he is considered to have given the object is favored, the Rabbis deemed the divorce unacceptable in consideration of the other view (Gittin 74a, 75a).
More specifically, it appears that the Rambam maintains that according to Scriptural law, the get is effective, and it is disqualified merely by virtue of Rabbinic decree, while Rabbenu Asher and the Rashba maintain that, according to Scriptural law, there is a doubt regarding the issue (Beit Shmuel 143:7).
48.
As reflected in Halachah 23, a husband can nullify a condition that he makes to a get. In this instance, however, he is not nullifying the condition, but rather trying to have it satisfied in a way other than that which he originally intended. This is not acceptable. Originally, he made the condition to annoy the woman, and since she did not suffer this worrying, the divorce is not effective unless he nullifies the condition entirely (Gittin 74b; Maggid Mishneh).
49.
Thus, if the husband dies without children, she is required to perform either the rites of yibbum or chalitzah.
50.
When a specific time period is mentioned and the condition is not fulfilled in that period, the divorce is nullified. In this instance, however, since a specific time is not mentioned, the Rambam maintains that the divorce is never nullified.
Rav Kapach explains that the Rambam's approach is based on his conception (see Halachah 1 of this chapter, and Chapter 9, Halachot 1 and 5) that when a get is given on a conditional basis, the get takes effect immediately, but it is not completed until the condition is fulfilled. Therefore, in this instance, since the condition can never be fulfilled, the divorce is not completed, and chalitzah is necessary if the husband dies childless. Nevertheless, yibbum cannot be performed, for the divorce has already begun.
Other commentaries offer different interpretations of the Rambam's views. The Tur (Even HaEzer 143) rejects the Rambam's ruling and maintains that the woman may also perform the rite of yibbum. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:3) follows the Rambam's view.
51.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 143) differs and explains that the husband has the option of accepting the money in lieu of the object originally mentioned. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 143:6) mentions both views, it appears to favor that of the Rambam.
52.
I.e., he tells the woman, "This is your get; there are no conditions attached." He does not have to take the get back from the woman.
53.
The Beit Shmuel 146:5 states that this applies when the husband gave the get "on the condition that...," for in such an instance the divorce is effective retroactively from the time the get was given. (With regard to other conditions, see the notes on Halachah 1.)
54.
E.g., the condition was limited to a specific time span, as in Halachah 22, or the condition was that she would not perform a specific act and she did perform it. If, however, the condition involves an act that she is capable of performing, we suspect that she has fulfilled the condition (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Even HaEzer 146:5).
55.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's decision and maintains that since it was possible for the woman to have fulfilled the condition, we suspect that perhaps she did in fact fulfill it. Therefore, she is forbidden to remain married to her first husband. It is the Rambam's view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:4).
56.
Halachah 13.
Gerushin - Chapter Nine
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.
א
המגרש את אשתו לאחר זמן קבוע הרי זו מגורשת כשיגיע הזמן שקבע. והרי זה דומה לתנאי ואינו תנאי. דומה לתנאי שהיא מתגרשת כשיגיע הזמן שקבע. ואינו תנאי שהמגרש על תנאי הרי גירש וזה עדיין לא גירש עד שיגיע אותו הזמן. לפיכך המגרש על תנאי צריך לכפול תנאו וזה אינו צריך לכפול דברו ולא לשאר משפטי התנאין שבארנו:
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
ב
כיצד האומר לאשתו הרי זה גיטך ולא תתגרשי בו אלא לאחר שלשים יום אינה מגורשת אלא לאחר שלשים יום. ואם מת הבעל או אבד הגט או נשרף בתוך שלשים אינה מגורשת:
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
ג
הלכה והניחתו בצדי רשות הרבים ונגנב או אבד משם לאחר שלשים יום הרי זו מגורשת הואיל והיה הגט קיים ביום שמתגרשת בו וייחדה אותו במקום שאינו רשות הרבים שצדי רשות הרבים אינן כרשות הרבים:
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.
ד
וכן אם תלה הגירושין במעשה דינו כדין מגרש אחר זמן. כיצד כגון שאמר לאשה הרי זה גיטך ולא תתגרשי בו עד שתתני לי מאתים זוז הרי זו מתגרשת אחר שתתן. ואין צריך לכפול תנאו ולא לשאר משפטי התנאין שבארנו. שהרי לא גירש על תנאי אלא עדיין לא גירש זה אלא תלה הגירושין בעשיית כך וכך ואח"כ תתגרש:
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.
ה
ומה בין המגרש על תנאי לזה שקבע זמן לגירושין או תלאן במעשה. שהמגרש על תנאי יש שם גירושין ואינן גומרין עד שיתקיים התנאי. לפיכך כשיתקיים התנאי נתגרשה אם היה הגט קיים אע"פ שאינו ברשותה ואינה צריכה לחזור וליטלו או להיותו ברשותה אחר שנתקיים התנאי שהרי הגיע לידה תחלה בתורת גירושין. ואם נשאת קודם שיתקיים התנאי לא תצא כמו שבארנו. אבל התולה גירושין בזמן או במעשה לא הגיע גט לידה בתורת גירושין אלא בתורת פקדון עד הזמן שקבע או עד שתעשה המעשה. לפיכך כשהגיע הזמן צריכה להיות הגט ברשותה או תחזור ותטלנו או שיהיה במקום שייחדה אותו בו אע"פ שאינו רשותה כמו שבארנו ואח"כ תתגרש בו. ואם נשאת קודם שיגיע הזמן שקבע או קודם שתעשה המעשה שתלה בו הגירושין תצא והולד ממזר שעדיין היא אשת איש גמורה ואין כאן שם גירושין:
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.
ו
הנותן גט ביד אשתו ואמר לה אם לא תתני לי מאתים זוז אין זה גט או אין את מגורשת הרי זה לא גירש כלל ואין כאן גט לא על תנאי ולא תלוי במעשה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
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.
ז
הרוצה לגרש על תנאי ויהיה ענין תנאו שלא תתגרש עד זמן פלוני הרי זה מוציא ענין זה בלשון תנאי ויתלה התנאי בביאתו בזמן קבוע או בהליכתו. כיצד כגון שיאמר לה אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שלשים יום הרי זה גט ואם באתי בתוך שלשים יום לא יהיה גט ונותן הגט בידה. או יאמר לה הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא אבוא למדינה זו עד שלשים יום וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
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.
ח
התנה עליה שיהיה גט אם לא בא עד שלשים יום למדינה זו והיה בא בדרך בתוך שלשים יום וחלה או עכבו נהר ולא בא עד אחר שלשים יום הרי זה גט. אפילו עומד וצווח הרי אני אנוס שאין אונס בגיטין. ואע"פ שגילה דעתו שאין רצונו לגרש:
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.16 Although 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."
ט
התנה עליה שתתגרש כשיעבור מנגד פניה שלשים יום והיה הולך ובא הולך ובא ולא נתייחד עמה, כשילך וישהה שלשים יום תהיה מגורשת. ואע"פ שהיה הולך ובא בתוך שלשים יום הואיל ולא נתיחד עמה הרי זה גט כשר. במה דברים אמורים בשהתנה ואמר הרי היא נאמנת עלי לומר שלא פייסתיה. אבל אם לא האמינה חוששין שמא פייסה כשהיה הולך ובא ומחלה לו וחזר ובטל הגט כשפייסה. ומפני חשש זה יהיה הגט פסול אחר שלשים יום. וכן האומר לאשה הרי זה גיטך לאחר שנים עשר חדש והיה עמה במדינה חוששין שמא פייסה עד שיאמר נאמנת עלי שלא פייסתי:
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.
י
וכן כל התנאין שהן תלויין ברצונה ואם רצת ומחלה אותן לבעלה בטל הגט חוששין לה שמא פייס עד שיאמר נאמנת עלי. במה דברים אמורים במתגרשת מן הנישואין שלבו גס בה אבל במתגרשת מן האירוסין אין חוששין לה שמא פייס:
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
יא
הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש אין חוששין שמא בסתר בא שאין דרך בני אדם לבוא בצנעה. ואם תם הזמן שקבע ולא בא הרי זו מגורשת. מת בתוך י"ב חדש אע"פ שאי אפשר שיבוא והרי היא מגורשת לא תנשא במקום יבם עד אחר שנים עשר חדש כשיתקיים התנאי:
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
יב
בריא שהתנה שיהיה זה גט אם מתי. או חולה שהתנה שיהיה זה גט אם מתי מחולי זה לא אמר כלום. שמשמעות אם מתי לאחר מיתה ומשמעו מעתה. לפיכך אם אמר אם מתי הרי זה כאומר לאחר מותי ואין גט לאחר מיתה:
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.
יג
אמר לה הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם מתי או מהיום אם מתי הרי זה גט וכשימות תהיה מגורשת:
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.
יד
אמר הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו או מהיום לאחר מיתתי ומת הרי זו ספק מגורשת שמא אחר שאמר מעכשיו חזר בו מלשון מעכשיו וסמכה דעתו על לאחר מיתה ואין גט לאחר מיתה:
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 the get] 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, the get 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.
טו
הרי זה גיטך לכשתצא חמה מנרתקה ומת בלילה אינו גט. על מנת שתזרח חמה ומת בלילה הרי זו מגורשת וכשתזרח חמה יתקיים התנאי. התנה עליה שאם זרחה חמה יהיה גט ואם לא זרחה לא יהיה גט ומת בלילה אינו גט שהרי לא נתקיים התנאי עד שמת ואין גט לאחר מיתה:
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
טז
שכיב מרע שכתב גט לאשתו וגירש ועמד אינו יכול לחזור בו שאין גיטו כמתנתו. שאם תאמר יחזור בו יאמרו גיטו לאחר מיתה יגרש כמו מתנתו שאינה קונה אלא לאחר מיתה:
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
יז
הרי זה גיטך מהיום אם מתי מחולי זה ונפל עליו בית או נשכו נחש או טרפו ארי וכיוצא בזה ומת אינו גט:
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.
יח
אמר לה אם לא יעמוד מחלי זה ונפל עליו בית או נשכו נחש או טרפו ארי הרי זו ספק מגורשת. הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם מתי מחולי זה ועמד והלך בשוק וחלה ומת אומדין אותו אם מחמת החולי הראשון מת הרי זה גט ואם לאו אינו גט ואם ניתק מחולי לחולי ולא עמד בשוק הרי זה גט ואינו צריך אומד:
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
יט
ובכל אלו התנאין כל הימים שמנתינת הגט עד שימות ויתקיים התנאי הרי היא מגורשת לכל דבר. ובלבד שלא תתייחד עמו כמו שבארנו:
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 of yibbum, 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.
כ
חולה שרצה לגרש אשתו על תנאי כשימות כדי שלא תפול לפני יבם ואם עמד לא תהיה מגורשת ולא רצה לגרשה מעכשיו כדי שלא תטרף דעתו. כך הוא כותב בגט אחר שכותב התורף או אומר לה כשנותן הגט אם לא מתי לא יהיה גט ואם מתי יהיה גט ואם לא מתי לא יהיה גט. כדי שתהיה תנאי כפול והן קודם ללאו ולא יפתח פיו תחלה לפורענות. ואם מת תהיה מגורשת כשימות והוא שיגיע הגט לידה קודם מיתה:
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.
כא
בעל שאמר לאחד זכה בגט זה לאשתי כדי שלא תפול לפני יבם ונתן הגט לידו ומת הבעל קודם שיגיע הגט לידה הרי זו ספק מגורשת. שרוב הנשים זכות הוא להן שלא יפלו לפני יבם. ולפיכך תהיה ספק מגורשת אע"פ שלא הגיע גט לידה הואיל וזכה לה בו אחר:
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.
כב
אמר לעדים לאחר שנים עשר חדש כתבו גט לאשתי או שאמר להם כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי לאחר י"ב חדש. הרי אלו כותבין ונותנין לה אחר הזמן שקבע. ואם כתבוהו בתוך הזמן אף על פי שנתנוהו לה לאחר זמן שאמר אינו גט. כתבוהו אחר זמן שאמר ומת קודם שינתן לה אינו גט. ואם לא נודע אם מיתה קדמה לנתינת הגט או נתינת הגט קדמה למיתה הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
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.
כג
אמר להן כתבו ותנו לאשתי גט אחר השבוע. אין כותבין אלא עד שנה אחר השבוע. אמר להן לאחר שנה אין כותבין [אלא] עד לאחר חדש משנה שניה. אמר להן לאחר החדש (אין) כותבין עד לאחר השבת מחדש שני. אמר לאחר שבת (אין) כותבין לאחר השבת עד סוף יום שלישי. אמר להן כתבו ותנו לה קודם השבת כותבין מיום ד' ועד סוף יום ו' ונותנין לה:
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
כד
הרי שאיחרו אחר הזמן שאמר ואח"כ כתבו ונתנו לה כגון שאמר להן לאחר החדש וכתבו ונתנו לה לאחר שתי שבתות מחדש שני ה"ז פסול:
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
כה
נתייחד עמה אחר שאמר להן לכתוב ולחתום וליתן לה הרי אלו לא יכתבו. וקל וחומר הדברים אם הגט שניתן לה לידה כשנתייחד עמה נפסל הגט שמא בעל. קל וחומר לזה שלא נכתב. ואם כתבו ונתנו לה אחר שנתייחד עמה אינו גט:
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
כו
אמר לעשרה כתבו גט לאשתי אחד כותב ע"י כולם. כולכם כתבו כותב אחד מהם במעמד כולם. הוליכו גט זה לאשתי מוליכו אחד מהן על ידי כולם. כולכם הוליכו גט זה לאשתי מוליכו אחד מהן במעמד כולם:
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 a get signed by many witnesses is that the witnesses who observe the transfer are of fundamental importance.58
כז
אמר לעשרה כתבו גט וחתמו ותנו לאשתי אחד מהן כותב ושנים מהן חותמין ואחד מהן נותנו לה. ואפילו היה הכותב אחד משני העדים שחתמו בו והוא השליח שנתנו לה ה"ז כשר. אמר להן כולכם חתומו כולם חותמין. ואם מנאן בין שמנה כולם בין שמנה מקצתן ואמר להן חתומו הרי זה כאומר להן כולכם חתומו ושנים שחותמין בתחלה הן משום עדים והשאר משום תנאי. לפיכך אם היו השאר פסולין או חתמו זה היום וזה למחר אפילו לימים הרבה הרי זה גט כשר. מת אחד מהן קודם חתימה הרי זה גט בטל. היה אחד משנים הראשונים פסול הרי זה גט פסול. שמא יאמרו עד פסול כשר בעדות שאר שטרות בעת שיהיו העדים רבים ולא הכשירוהו בגט שעדיו רבים אלא מפני שעדי מסירה הן העיקר:
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."
כח
תקנו חכמים שהאומר לרבים לכתוב גט או לחתום או להוליך גט לאשתו. אם לכתיבה אומר להן כל אחד מכם יכתוב גט לאשתי וכן להולכה כל אחד מכם יוליך. ואם לחתימה יאמר להן כל שנים מכם יחתמו בגט זה ויתנו לאשתי:
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.
כט
ולמה אמרו חכמים עדי הגט אין חותמין אלא זה בפני זה גזירה שמא יאמר לרבים כולכם חתומו. אם תאמר חותמין זה שלא בפני זה שמא יעידו שנים ותטול הגט בידה ותחשוב שכבר העידו בו ועדיין לא נתקיים התנאי:
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.
ל
אמר לשלשה שנים מכם יכתבו גט לאשתי ויחתמו ויתנו לה והיה בהן אב ובנו בין שחתם הבן עם האחד בין שחתם האב עם האחד הרי זה גט כשר. שהאדם עושה הבן שליח במקום האב:
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
לא
אמר לשנים כתבו וחתמו ותנו לפלוני שיוליך לאשתי. או תנו לשליח שיוליך לה. אחד מהן כותב ושניהם חותמין ונותנין לשליח. ואם הוליכו הן בעצמן ונתנו לה אינו גט שלא עשה אותן שלוחין לגירושין. כיצד יעשו יטלו אותו ממנה ויתנוהו לשליח וחוזר ונותנו לה בפניהן או בפני אחרים. ורבותי הורו בגט זה דבר שאינו נראה מפני שיבוש שהיה בנוסחאות שלהן:
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.63 The 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
לב
אמר לסופר כתוב לי גט לאשתי כתבו ונתנו לבעל בלא עדים ונטלו הבעל ונתנו לשליח ואמר לו תן גט זה לאשתי בפני עדים והלך השליח ונתנו לה בפני עדים הרי זו ספק מגורשת. שאין השליח נאמן להתיר הערוה אע"פ שהוא עד אחד אלא מפני כתב העדים שחתמו על הגט שהן כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין עד שיהיה שם מערער כמו שבארנו שם. ואם היו שם שני עדים שיעידו שגט זה הבעל נתנו לשליח לגרשה בו הרי זו מגורשת:
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 the get to be given on that date. Similar rulings apply in all analogous situations.
לג
האומר לשליח תן גט זה לאשתי במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר אינו גט. הרי היא במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר כשר מפני שמראה מקום הוא לו. אמר אל תתנהו לה אלא בבית ונתנו לה בעלייה. אל תתנהו לה אלא בימין ונתנו לה בשמאל. תנהו לה ביום פלוני ונתנו לה בתוך הזמן אינו גט. אל תתנהו לה אלא ביום פלוני ונתנו לה מלפניו או מאחריו אינו גט שהרי הקפיד על עצמו של יום וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
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
לד
וכן האשה שאמרה לשלוחה התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני וקבלו לה במקום אחר אינו גט. הבא לי גיטי במקום פלוני והביאו לה במקום אחר כשר:
35
When [a man] tells an agent: "Bring this get to my wife," the agent may send the get 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
לה
האומר לשלוחו הולך גט זה לאשתי בין שאמר לו הולך בין שאמר לו את הולך וחלה או נאנס משלחו ביד אחר. ואם אמר לו טול ממנה חפץ פלוני ותן לה גט זה הרי זה לא ישלחנו ביד אחר. ואם שלחו ביד אחר ויצאת האשה לקראת השליח ונתנה החפץ תחלה ואחר כך נתן לה הגט הרי זו מגורשת:
36
If the agent - i.e., [either] the first [or the second] agent - gave the woman the get 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].
לו
נתן לה הגט תחלה ואחר כך נתנה החפץ אפילו מיד שליח ראשון אינו גט שהרי עבר על דברי הבעל בדבר שסתם בני אדם מקפידין עליו. שהרי הבעל אמר לו טול החפץ תחלה ותן לה הגט והוא נתן ואחר כך נטל:
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
לז
אמר לו תן לה הגט וטול ממנה חפץ פלוני הרי זה לא ישלחנו ביד אחר שאין רצונו שיהיה פקדונו ביד אחר. ואם שלחו ביד אחר הרי זה גט בין שנתנה החפץ תחלה בין שלא נתנה אלא בסוף:
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.
לח
נתן לשליח הגט ואמר לו לא תתנהו לה אלא אתה ונתנו לאחר ונתנו לה אינו גט. וכן אם אמר לו אל תתנהו לה אתה תנהו לפלוני והוא יתנהו לה ונתנו לה השליח הראשון אינו גט. לפי שלא עשהו שליח לגירושין:
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.
לט
נתן לו הגט ואמר לו הולך גט זה לאשתי אמר לו השליח איני מכירה אמר לו הבעל תנהו לפלוני הוא מכירה. הרי זה שליח שלא ניתן לגירושין ואינו נותן הגט אלא לפלוני שאמר הבעל ואותו הפלוני הוא שליח לגירושין הוא שמוליכו לה או משלחו ביד אחר אם חלה או נאנס:
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
מ
נתן הגט לשליח ואמר לו לא תתנהו לה עד שלשים יום וחלה או נאנס בתוך השלשים משלחו ביד אחר. שאע"פ שאינו עכשיו שליח לגירושין הואיל ולאחר שלשים יום יהיה שליח גירושין עושה שליח אחר בתוך שלשים יום:
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."
מא
במה דברים אמורים בשלא היה בעלה עמה במדינה או שהיתה מתגרשת מן האירוסין. אבל אם מתגרשת מן הנשואין ובעלה עמה במדינה חוששין לו שמא פייס. ואינו עושה שליח בתוך השלשים אלא אם כן אמר נאמנת עלי שלא פייסתי. אבל נותן הגט לה לאחר שלשים וחוששין לה כמו שבארנו עד שיאמר נאמנת עלי שלא פייסתי:
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 the get 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 gittin were 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 in Hilchot 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 the get (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 get for 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. The Shulchan 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 HaEzer 145:1) 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 to Hilchot 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 her yavam. 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 HaEzer 130:18), 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 Mechokek 120:18).
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 Shmuel 141:65.)
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 the get, 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 Shmuel 141:66, 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 get first.
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.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Friday, Kislev 27, 5778 · 15 December 2017
"Today's Day"
Sunday, Kislev 27, Third Day of Chanuka, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Mikeitz, first parsha, with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: Ch. 3. Now, each (p. 9)...and dread of Him (p. 11).
During the Alter Rebbe's second arrest1 in 5561 (1800) he was not incarcerated as harshly as the first time. However the charges were more ominous for they were aimed at the doctrines of Chassidus and the opposition was intense. He was held in "Taini Soviet" prison and released on the Third Light of Chanuka.
FOOTNOTES
1.See "On Learning Chassidus" Kehot, p. 24.
Daily Thought:
Darkness With Hope
There are dark jewels in this world that can be salvaged, purified and taken as precious bounty for the good.
And there is darkness itself, the absence of light, that must only wait its time to expire.
How can we tell between them?
If the darkness fights back, there is hope.
It means there is something there worth fighting for.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment