Torah Reading
Tazria (Leviticus/Vayikra [TAZRIA-METZORA] 12:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
2 Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, saying, If an isha have conceived, and born a zachar, then she shall be temeiah shivat yamim; according to the yamim of the niddah (menstruation separation) for her infirmity shall she be temeiah (unclean).
3 And in the yom hashemini the basar of his arel (uncircumcision, foreskin) shall be circumcised.
4 And shloshim yom ushloshet she shall then remain in demei tohorah (blood of her purifying, i.e., period in which she would be unclean); she shall touch no kodesh, nor enter the Mikdash, until the yamei of her tohorah be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a nekevah, then she shall be temeiah two weeks, as in her niddah (separation); and she shall remain in the blood of her tohorah sixty-six days.
6 And when the yemei tohorah are fulfilled, for a ben, or for a bat, she shall bring a keves of the first year for an olah, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a chattat (sin offering), unto the entrance of the Ohel Mo’ed unto the kohen;
7 Who shall offer it before Hashem, and make kapporah for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her dahm. This is the torah for her that hath born a zachar or a nekevah.
8 And if she be not able to afford to bring a seh, then she shall bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one for an olah, and the other for a chattat; and the kohen shall make kapporah for her, and she shall be teherah (clean) [See Lk 2:24 regarding this chapter and on how Moshiach was first brought to the Beis Hamikdash].
13:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and Aharon, saying,
2 When a man shall have in the skin of his basar a swelling, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his basar like the nega tzara’at; then he shall be brought unto Aharon the kohen, or unto one of his Banim the kohanim;
3 And the kohen shall examine the nega in the skin of the basar; and when hair in the nega is turned white, and the nega in appearance be deeper than the skin of his basar, it is a nega tzara’at; and the kohen shall examine him, and pronounce him tamei.
4 If the bright spot be white in the skin of his basar, and in appearance be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the kohen shall quarantine him that hath the nega shivat yamim;
5 And the kohen shall examine him on the yom hashevi’i; and, hinei, if the nega in his sight be unchanged, and the nega spread not in the skin; then the kohen shall quarantine him another shivat yamim;
6 And the kohen shall examine him again on the yom hashevi’i; and, hinei, if the nega be somewhat faded, and the nega spread not in the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him tahor; it is but a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be tahor.
7 But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the kohen for his tohorah, he shall appear before the kohen again.
8 And if the kohen see that, hinei, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is a tzara’at.
9 When the nega tzara’at is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the kohen;
10 And the kohen shall examine him; and, hinei, if the swelling be white in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be raw basar in the swelling;
11 It is an old tzara’at in the skin of his basar, and the kohen shall pronounce him tamei, and shall not quarantine him; for he is tamei.
12 And if a tzara’at break out abroad in the skin, and the tzara’at cover all the skin of him that hath the nega from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the kohen looketh,
13 Then the kohen shall consider; and, hinei, if the tzara’at have covered all his basar, he shall pronounce him tahor that hath the nega; it is all turned white; he is tahor.
14 But on the day when raw basar appeareth in him, he shall be tamei.
15 And the kohen shall see the raw basar, and pronounce him to be tamei; for the raw basar is tamei; it is a tzara’at.
16 Or if the raw basar turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the kohen;
17 And the kohen shall see him; and, hinei, if the nega be turned into white, then the kohen shall pronounce him tahor that hath the nega; he is tahor.
18 The basar also, in which, even in the skin thereof, was a boil, and is healed,
19 And in the place of the boil there be a white swelling, or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish, and it be shown to the kohen;
20 And if, when the kohen examine it, hinei, it be in appearance deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white; the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is a nega tzara’at broken out of the boil.
21 But if the kohen examine it, and, hinei, there be no white hair therein, and if it be not deeper than the skin, but be somewhat faded, then the kohen shall quarantine him shivat yamim;
22 And if it spread much abroad in the skin, then the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is a nega.
23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and spread not, it is a burning boil; and the kohen shall pronounce him tahor.
24 Or if there be any basar, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning, and the raw basar that burneth have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white,
25 Then the kohen shall examine it; and, hinei, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it be in appearance deeper than the skin, it is a tzara’at broken out of the burning; therefore the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is the nega tzara’at.
26 But if the kohen examine it, and, hinei, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no deeper than the other skin, but be dim, then the kohen shall quarantine him shivat yamim;
27 And the kohen shall examine him on the yom hashevi’i; and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is the nega tzara’at.
28 And if the bright spot stay in its place, and spread not in the skin, but it be dim, it is a swelling of the burn, and the kohen shall pronounce him tahor; for it is an inflammation of the burning.
29 If an ish or isha have a nega upon the head or the chin,
30 Then the kohen shall examine the nega, and, hinei, if it be in appearance deeper than the skin, and there be in it a yellow thin hair, then the kohen shall pronounce him tamei; it is a scale, even a tzara’at upon the head or chin.
31 And if the kohen examine the nega of the scale, and, hinei, it be not in appearance deeper than the skin, and that there is no black hair in it, then the kohen shall quarantine him that hath the nega of the scale shivat yamim;
32 And in the yom hashevi’i the kohen shall examine the nega; and, hinei, if the scale spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scale be not in appearance deeper than the skin,
33 He shall be shaven, but the scale shall he not shave; and the kohen shall quarantine him that hath the scale another shivat yamim;
34 And in the yom hashevi’i the kohen shall examine the scale; and, hinei, if the scale be not spread in the skin, nor be in appearance deeper than the skin, then the kohen shall pronounce him tahor; and he shall wash his clothes, and be tahor.
35 But if the scale spread much in the skin after his tohorah,
36 Then the kohen shall examine him; and, hinei, if the scale be spread in the skin, the kohen need not seek for yellow hair; he is tamei.
37 But if the scale be in his sight unchanged, and that there is black hair grown up therein; the scale is healed, he is tahor; and the kohen shall pronounce him tahor.
38 If an ish also or an isha have in the skin of their basar bright spots, even white bright spots,
39 Then the kohen shall examine; and, hinei, if the bright spots in the skin of their basar be faint white, it is a bohak spot that groweth in the skin; he is tahor.
40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he tahor.
41 And he that hath his hair fallen off from the front of his scalp, he is bald at the forehead; yet is he tahor.
42 And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish nega, it is a tzara’at breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead.
43 Then the kohen shall examine it; and, hinei, if the swelling of the nega be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the tzara’at appeareth in the skin of the basar,
44 He is an ish tzaru’a, he is tamei; the kohen shall pronounce him utterly tamei; his nega is in his head.
45 And the tzaru’a in whom the nega is, his clothes shall be torn, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his lower face, and shall cry, Tamei! Tamei!
46 All the days wherein the nega shall be in him he shall be tamei; he is tamei; he shall live alone; outside the machaneh shall his moshav be.
47 When a garment has the nega tzara’at in it, whether it be a wool garment, or a linen garment;
48 Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of wool; whether in a leather, or in anything made of leather;
49 And if the nega be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the leather, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of leather, it is a nega tzara’at, and shall be shown unto the kohen;
50 And the kohen shall examine the nega, and quarantine it that hath the nega shivat yamim;
51 And he shall examine the nega on the yom hashevi’i; if the nega be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a leather, or in any work that is made of leather, the nega is a malignant tzara’at; it is tamei.
52 He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in wool or in linen, or any thing of leather, wherein the nega is; for it is a malignant tzara’at; it shall be burned in the eish.
53 And if the kohen shall examine, and, hinei, the nega be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of leather,
54 Then the kohen shall command that they wash the thing wherein the nega is, and he shall quarantine it another shivat yamim;
55 And the kohen shall examine the nega, after that it is washed; and, hinei, if the nega has not changed its appearance, and the nega be not spread, it is tamei; thou shalt burn it in the eish; whether the eating away hath brought bareness in the front or back.
56 And if the kohen examine, and, hinei, the nega be somewhat faded after the washing of it, then he shall tear it out of the garment, or out of the leather, or out of the warp, or out of the woof;
57 And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of leather, it is a spreading nega; thou shalt burn that wherein the nega is with eish.
58 And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of leather it be, which thou shalt wash, if the nega be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be tahor.
59 This is the torah of the nega tzara’at in a garment of wool or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of leather, to pronounce it tahor, or to pronounce it tamei.)
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• PARSHAT HACHODESH
On the Shabbat that falls on or before the 1st of Nissan, a special reading called "Hachodesh" (Exodus 12:1-20) is added to the regular Shabbat Torah reading. Hachodesh recounts G-d's historic communication to Moses in Egypt on the 1st of Nissan (2 weeks before the Exodus) regarding the Jewish calendar, the month of Nissan and the Passover offering.
Links: The Reading for Hachodesh
From the teachings of the Chassidic masters on Hachodesh
About the Jewish calendar
Haftorah in a Nutshell
• BLESSING THE NEW MONTH
This Shabbat is Shabbat Mevarchim ("the Shabbat that blesses" the new month): a special prayer is recited blessing the Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") of upcoming month of Nissan, which falls on Tuesday of next week.
Prior to the blessing, we announce the precise time of the molad, the "birth" of the new moon. Click here for molad times.
It is a Chabad custom to recite the entire book of Psalms before morning prayers, and to conduct farbrengens (chassidic gatherings) in the course of the Shabbat.
Links: On the Significance of Shabbat Mevarchim; Tehillim (the Book of Psalms); The Farbrengen
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PASSING OF ZEDEKIAH (397 BCE)
Zedekiah was the last king of the royal house of David to reign in the Holy Land. He ascended the throne in 434 BCE, after King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia (to whom the kingdom of Judah was then subject) exiled King Jeconiah (Zedekiah's nephew) to Babylonia . In 425 BCE Zedekiah rebelled against Babylonian rule, and Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem (in Tevet 10 of that year); in the summer of 423 BCE the walls of Jerusalem were penetrated, the city conquered, the (first) Holy Temple destroyed, and the people of Judah exiled to Babylonia. Zedekiah tried escaping through a tunnel leading out of the city, but was captured; his sons were killed before his eyes, and then he was blinded. Zedekiah languished in the royal dungeon in Babylonia until Nebuchadnezzar's death in 397 BCE; Evil Meroduch -- Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor -- freed him (and his nephew Jeconiah) on the 27th of Adar, but Zedikiah died that same day.
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Tazria, 7th Portion Leviticus 13:55-13:59 with Rashi
• Chapter 13
55. Then the kohen shall look [at it] after the lesion has been washed. And, behold! the lesion has not changed in appearance, and the lesion has not spread; it is unclean. You shall burn it in fire. It is a penetrating lesion on the worn or new [article]. נה. וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אַחֲרֵי | הֻכַּבֵּס אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה לֹא הָפַךְ הַנֶּגַע אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַנֶּגַע לֹא פָשָׂה טָמֵא הוּא בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרְפֶנּוּ פְּחֶתֶת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ:
after [the lesion] has been washed: Heb. הֻכַּבֵּס. This is an expression of “having been done,” [i.e., the passive voice].
אחרי הכבס: לשון העשות:
the lesion has not changed in appearance: i.e., it has not become dimmer in color.
לא הפך הנגע את עינו: לא הוכהה ממראיתו:
and the lesion has not spread: We understand that if the lesion neither changed [in color] nor spread, it is unclean, and it goes without saying that if it did not change in color but did spread, [it is unclean]. If it changed in color [but still was a shade that makes it unclean] yet did not spread, we do not know what one should do with it. Therefore, Scripture says, “he shall quarantine [the article with] the lesion” (verse 50), in any case. That is what Rabbi Judah says. [However,] the Sages say [that since the change in color was still within the unclean shades, the lesion is not considered to be changed at all; it is the same lesion that has already had two weeks of quarantine, and is now deemed definitely unclean], as is stated in Torath Kohanim (13:171). I have alluded to [only a portion of] this [Midrash] here in order to explain all the different aspects of this verse.
והנגע לא פשה: שמענו שאם לא הפך ולא פשה טמא, ואין צריך לומר לא הפך ופשה. הפך ולא פשה איני יודע מה יעשה לו, תלמוד לומר והסגיר את הנגע, מכל מקום, דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים וכו', כדאיתא בתורת כהנים. ורמזתיה כאן ליישב המקרא על אופניו:
it is a penetrating lesion: Heb. פְּחֶתֶת הִוא. [This expression] denotes holes [i.e., penetrations], as the verse says, “in one of the pits (פְּחָתִים)” (II Sam. 17:9). That is to say, [in this context it means that the lesion] is deep, [i.e.,] it appears as if it is sunken. — [Torath Kohanim 13:172]
פחתת היא: לשון גומא, כמו (שמואל ב' יז ט) באחת הפחתים, כלומר שפלה היא, נגע שמראיו שוקעין:
on the worn or new [article]: בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: בִּשְׁחִיקוּתֵיהּ אוֹ בְּחַדְתּוּתֵהּ, “in its worn state or in its new state.”
בקרחתו או בגבחתו: כתרגומו בשחיקותיה או בחדתותיה:
the worn: Heb. בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ. Old, worn out garments, and because of the midrashic explanation, that this language is necessary for a שָׁוָה גְּזֵרָה here [i.e., a link between two seemingly unrelated passages through common terms, thereby inferring the laws of one passage from the laws of the other, as follows]: How do we know that if a lesion on a garment spreads [throughout the entire garment], it is clean? Because [Scripture] states קָרַחַת and גַּבַּחַת in the context of [lesions that appear on] man (verse 42), and here, in the context of [lesion on] garments, [Scripture] also states קָרַחַת and גַּבַּחַת; just as there [in the case of lesions on man], if it spread over the entire body, he is clean (verses 1213), so too, here, [in the case of lesion on garments,] if it spread over the entire garment, it is clean (San. 88a), Scripture adopts the [unusual] expressions קָרַחַת and גַּבַּחַת. However, concerning the explanation and translation [of these terms], the simple meaning is that קָרַחַת means “old” and גַּבַּחַת means “new.” It is as though it were written, “[It is a lesion on] its end or its beginning,” for קָרַחַת means “back” [i.e., at the end of the garment’s life, when it is old,] and גַּבַּחַת means “front” [i.e., the beginning of its life, when it is new]. This is just as is written, “And if [he loses hair] at the front of his head, [he is bald at the front (גַּבַּח)]” (verse 41). And קָרַחַת refers from the crown toward his back. Thus it is explained in Torath Kohanim (13:144).
קרחתו: שחקים ישנים. ומפני המדרש שהוצרך לגזרה שוה מנין לפריחה בבגדים שהיא טהורה, נאמרה קרחת וגבחת באדם, ונאמרה קרחת וגבחת בבגדים, מה להלן פרח בכולו טהור, אף כאן פרח בכולו טהור, לכך אחז הכתוב לשון קרחת וגבחת. ולענין פירושו ותרגומו זהו משמעו קרחת לשון ישנים, וגבחת לשון חדשים, כאלו נכתב באחריתו או בקדמותו, שהקרחת לשון אחוריים והגבחת לשון פנים, כמו שכתוב (פסוק מא) ואם מפאת פניו וגו', והקרחת כל ששופע ויורד מן הקדקד ולאחריו, כך מפורש בתורת כהנים:
56. But if the kohen looks [at it] after it has been washed, and behold! the lesion has become dimmer, he shall tear it out of the garment, out of the leather, or out of the warp or woof [threads]. נו. וְאִם רָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כֵּהָה הַנֶּגַע אַחֲרֵי הֻכַּבֵּס אֹתוֹ וְקָרַע אֹתוֹ מִן הַבֶּגֶד אוֹ מִן הָעוֹר אוֹ מִן הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ מִן הָעֵרֶב:
he shall tear it: He shall tear the afflicted area from the garment and burn that area [of garment]. — [Torath Kohanim 13:174]
וקרע אתו: יקרע מקום הנגע מן הבגד וישרפנו:
57. And if it appears again on the garment, the warp or woof [threads] or any leather article, it is a recurrent growth [of the lesion]. You shall burn it in fire [the article] upon which the lesion is [found]. נז. וְאִם תֵּרָאֶה עוֹד בַּבֶּגֶד אוֹ בַשְּׁתִי אוֹ בָעֵרֶב אוֹ בְכָל כְּלִי עוֹר פֹּרַחַת הִוא בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרְפֶנּוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַנָּגַע:
it is a recurrent growth: פֹּרַחַת, something that grows recurrently.
פרחת הוא: דבר החוזר וצומח:
You shall burn it in fire: the entire garment.
באש תשרפנו: את כל הבגד:
58. But the garment, the warp or woof [threads] or any leather article which is washed, and the lesion disappears from them, shall be immersed a second time, and it shall be clean. נח. וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כָל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס וְסָר מֵהֶם הַנָּגַע וְכֻבַּס שֵׁנִית וְטָהֵר:
and the lesion disappears from them: If, after they first washed [the article] by order of the kohen, the lesion disappeared completely from it… [then]
וסר מהם הנגע: אם כשכבסוהו בתחלה על פי כהן, סר ממנו הנגע לגמרי:
shall be immersed a second time: [The word וְכֻבַּס in this verse] means immersion [in a mikvah. See Torath Kohanim 13:179]. In Targum [Onkelos], the translation of all the instances of כִּבּוּס in this whole section is “to cleanse, clean” (וְיִתְחַוֵּר), with this one exception [in our verse]. Here the meaning is not “cleansing” but rather “immersion [in a mikvah].” Thus Targum [Onkelos] here [in translating the word וְכֻבַּס] says וְיִצְטַבַּע, “and it shall be immersed.” Likewise, wherever the כִבּוּס of garments refers to immersion [in a mikvah], it is translated in the Targum as וְיִצְטַבַּע.
וכבס שנית: לשון טבילה. תרגום של כבוסין שבפרשה זו לשון לבון ויתחוור, חוץ מזה שאינו ללבון אלא לטבול, לכך תרגומו ויצטבע, וכן כל כבוסי בגדים שהן לטבילה מתורגמין ויצטבע:
59. This is the law of a lesion of tzara'ath on a woolen or linen garment, warp or woof threads, or any leather article, to render it clean or unclean. נט. זֹאת תּוֹרַת נֶגַע צָרַעַת בֶּגֶד הַצֶּמֶר | אוֹ הַפִּשְׁתִּים אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כָּל כְּלִי עוֹר לְטַהֲרוֹ אוֹ לְטַמְּאוֹ:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 120 - 134
• 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.
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.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
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 39
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Shabbat, Adar II 27, 5774 • March 29, 2014
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 39
In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe explained why our Sages compare the performance of a mitzvah to a body, and one’s kavanah in performing the mitzvah to a soul.
He stated that kavanah can be classified into two categories, analogous to the two classes of creatures which possess a soul — animals and man.
The higher level of kavanah is that created by an intellectual appreciation of G dliness. Upon contemplating G d’s greatness, a love and fear of Him is born in one’s heart, which translates into a desire to cleave to Him. This desire in turn motivates one to fulfill the Torah and mitzvot, since they bind him to G d, and this motivation is the kavanah in his fulfillment of the Torah and mitzvot. Such kavanah, born of reason and produced by one’s own volition, is analogous to the soul of man, the intelligent being who determines his actions by choice.
The lower level of kavanah is that which stems from an arousal of the soul’s natural, instinctive love and fear of G d. Such kavanah is comparable to the soul of an animal, which is ruled by its natural instincts.
The Alter Rebbe now opens ch. 39 by stating that for this reason the angels, who fear and love G d by their very nature, are metaphorically called “animals”.
ומפני זה גם כן נקראים המלאכים בשם חיות ובהמות, כדכתיב: ופני אריה אל הימין וגו׳ ופני שור מהשמאל וגו׳
For this reason, too, the angels are called chayyot (“beasts”) and behemot (“animals”), as it is written,1 “and an angel with the face of a lion is to the right of the divine chariot... and the face of an ox is on the left....”
לפי שאינם בעלי בחירה, ויראתם ואהבתם היא טבעית להם, כמו שכתוב ברעיא מהימנא, פרשת פינחס
For they have no freedom of choice between good and evil, as man has. And their fear and love [of G d] is natural to them; they need not create fear and love of G d through intellectual contemplation of G d’s greatness, as is written in Ra‘aya Mehemna (Parshat Pinchas). Because their fear and love of G d are natural and instinctive to them, they are compared to animals.
ולכן מעלת הצדיקים גדולה מהם, כי מדור נשמות הצדיקים הוא בעולם הבריאה, ומדור המלאכים בעולם היצירה
Therefore, tzaddikim are on a higher level than them (the angels):2 the abode of the souls of tzaddikim is in the World of Beriah (Creation), whereas the abode of the angels is in the World of Yetzirah (Formation).*
הגהה
והיינו בסתם מלאכים, אבל יש מלאכים עליונים בעולם הבריאה, שעבודתם בדחילו ורחימו שכליים
*NOTE
This is so [only] in the case of ordinary angels. There are, however, higher angels in the World of Beriah, whose service [of G d] is with intelligent fear and love.
כמו שכתוב ברעיא מהימנא שם, שיש שני מיני חיות הקדש, טבעיים ושכליים, וכמו שכתוב בע׳ חיים
It is written so in Ra‘aya Mehemna, ibid., that there are two kinds of holy chayyot, instinctive and intelligent (i.e., those whose love and fear are instinctive, and those who create love and fear intellectually), as is also written in Etz Chayim.
END OF NOTE
The abode of ordinary angels, however, is in the World of Yetzirah; and they are thus lower than the souls of the tzaddikim, whose abode is in Beriah. The Alter Rebbe now explains how intellectually created love and fear are related to Beriah, and instinctive love and fear to Yetzirah.
והבדל שביניהם הוא
The difference between [Beriah and Yetzirah] is as follows:
כי בעולם היצירה, מאירות שם מדותיו של אין סוף ברוך הוא לבדן, שהן אהבתו ופחדו ויראתו כו׳
In Yetzirah, only the middot of the Blessed Ein Sof radiate (i.e., only the Sefirot of Chesed (kindness), Gevurah (Severity), etc.) — meaning the love of Him (corresponding to Chesed), dread and fear of Him (corresponding to Gevurah), and so on (with the other four middot).
וכמו שכתוב בתקונים וע׳ חיים דשית ספירין מקננין ביצירה
For it is thus written (in Tikkunei Zohar and in Etz Chayim) that the six Sefirot (i.e., the six middot, from Chesed through Yesod) “nest” in (i.e., pervade) the World of Yetzirah.
The four partzufim (lit., “countenances”; i.e., configurations of Sefirot) of the Sefirot of Atzilut (the World of Emanation) radiate in the four Worlds — Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and (the World of Action, viz.,) Asiyah; one partzuf predominates in each World, representing the manifestation of G dliness in that World.
These partzufim are: (a) Chochmah (Wisdom); (b) Binah (Understanding); (c) Ze‘er Anpin (lit., “The Small Image”; i.e., the six middot); (d) Malchut (Sovereignty).
In Atzilut, Chochmah is the dominant partzuf. Atzilut is thus pervaded with an atmosphere of utter self-nullification before G d; for Chochmah, the dominant influence in that World, represents the perception that “Ein Sof is One alone, and there is naught besides Him” (as discussed in ch. 35).
In Beriah (also called the “World of the Throne”), Binah is the dominant partzuf. Beriah is therefore a World of intellect; the souls and angels of Beriah are distinguished by superior intellectual appreciation of G dliness.
Yetzirah is dominated by the six middot (which together constitute the partzuf of Ze‘er Anpin ). It is therefore a World of emotion; the creatures of Yetzirah serve G d with great emotional intensity.
Asiyah, the lowest World, is dominated by the partzuf of Malchut. G d’s attribute of Sovereignty evokes subservience in His subjects; therefore, in our service of G d in this World, the emphasis is on “accepting the yoke of heaven.”
To return to our subject: Middot are the dominant influence in Yetzirah.
ולכן זאת היא עבודת המלאכים, תמיד יומם ולילה לא ישקוטו, לעמוד ביראה ופחד וכו׳
Therefore, this is the service of the angels whose abode is in Yetzirah, as mentioned above, constantly, never ceasing day or night, to stand in fear and dread [of G d].
והיינו כל מחנה גבריאל, שמהשמאל
This refers to the entire host of [angels under] Gabriel, which is on the left. “Left” represents the middah of Gevurah, which evokes fear and awe. Therefore all these angels stand in constant fear of G d.
ועבודת מחנה מיכאל היא האהבה כו׳
The service of the host of [angels under] Michael, on the other hand, is love [of G d]; they stand in constant adoration of G dliness, corresponding to the middah of Chesed, and so on.
Thus, because middot constitute the dominant partzuf in Yetzirah, the service of the creatures of Yetzirah consists of emotion.
אבל בעולם הבריאה מאירות שם חכמתו ובינתו ודעתו של האין סוף ברוך הוא, שהן מקור המצות, ואם ושרש להן
But in the World of Beriah radiate the Chochmah, Binah and Daat of the Blessed Ein Sof (i.e., the upper three Sefirot — ChaBaD — of Atzilut), which are the source of middot, and their “mother” and root.
וכדאיתא בתקונים דאימא עילאה מקננא בתלת ספירן בכרסיא, שהוא עולם הבריאה
For it is written thus in Tikkunei Zohar, that Imma Ila‘ah (lit., “The Supernal Mother”; i.e., the Sefirah of Binah, described as “mother” of the World of Atzilut) “nests” (radiates) in “the Throne,” meaning the World of Beriah, with three Sefirot of Atzilut: Chochmah, Binah and Daat.
ולכן הוא מדור נשמות הצדיקים, עובדי ה׳ בדחילו ורחימו הנמשכות מן הבינה ודעת דגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא
Because these three Sefirot — ChaBaD — of the Ein Sof radiate in the World of Beriah, it is therefore the abode of the souls of those tzaddikim who serve G d with a fear and love that stem from understanding and knowledge of G d’s greatness,
שאהבה זו נקרא רעותא דלבא, כנ״ל
this love being called re‘uta delibba (lit., “the heart’s desire,” i.e., a desire created by intellect, as opposed to desire that transcends intellect), as mentioned above.
ומרעותא דלבא נעשה לבוש לנשמה בעולם הבריאה, שהוא גן עדן העליון, כדלקמן, וכמו שכתוב בזהר, ויקהל
From this re‘uta delibba a garment is formed for the soul in the World of Beriah, which is the Higher Garden of Eden, as will be discussed further, and as is written in the Zohar, Parshat Vayakhel. The Lower Garden of Eden is in Yetzirah, and the Higher Garden of Eden in Beriah.
Ultimately, the souls of those who serve G d with intellectual love and fear are privileged to abide in the Higher Garden of Eden — Beriah. For the reward given in the Garden of Eden (Paradise) is that the souls “delight in the radiance of the Shechinah,” i.e., they delight in their perception of G d’s glory. Since one’s reward is commensurate with his level of divine service, the delight in intellectual perception of G dliness is reserved for the souls of those who served G d with intellectual love and fear during their lifetime on earth.
At this point the Alter Rebbe qualifies his earlier statement: Only those tzaddikim whose souls are on the level of Neshamah (i.e., the highest of the three soul-levels — Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah) abide in Beriah. Neshamah represents Mochin deGadlut — a “superior intellectual grasp” of G dliness; those on the level of Neshamah understand G dliness directly as it is, without recourse to analogy or anthropomorphic terms. Love and fear follow from such direct understanding of G dliness as its natural extensions; they are not products of intellect, a generation removed. In this case, in fact, the emotions may be considered as part of an intellectual process, rather than emotion proper.
אך היינו דווקא נשמות ממש
However this statement, that the abode of tzaddikim who serve G d with intellectual love and fear is in the World of Beriah, applies only to those souls which are actually on the level of Neshamah — the level of Neshamah being that of intellect, as the verse states,3 “The divine Neshamah will give them discernment” —
שהן בחינת מוחין דגדלות אין סוף ברוך הוא
and which represent a “superior intellectual perception” of the Blessed Ein Sof.
אבל בחינת הרוח של הצדיקים
But the tzaddikim who are at the level of Ruach,
וכן שאר כל נשמות ישראל, שעבדו את ה׳ בדחילו ורחימו המסותרות בלב כללות ישראל
and similarly all the other souls of Israel, who served G d with the natural fear and love hidden in the heart of all Israel, not with love and fear born of intellect,
אין עולות לשם רק בשבת וראש חודש לבד
ascend thereto (to Beriah) only on Shabbat and the New Moon when all creation ascends to a higher level (as it is written, “...every month, on the New Moon, and every week, on the Shabbat, all flesh will come to prostrate themselves before Me, says G d”); it is only then that these souls ascend to the World of Beriah, the Higher Garden of Eden,
דרך העמוד שמגן עדן התחתון לגן עדן העליון, שהוא עולם הבריאה, הנקרא גן עדן העליון
by means of the pillar that extends from the Lower Garden of Eden (Yetzirah) to the Higher Garden of Eden, i.e., the World of Beriah, which is called the Higher Garden of Eden.4
להתענג על ה׳ וליהנות מזיו השכינה
By means of this pillar, these souls ascend thereto to delight in G d, and to bask in the radiance of the Shechinah.
Such pleasure is the prerogative of the souls in Beriah, since the soul’s delight is from its understanding and appreciation of G dliness — to the extent that a soul is capable of such understanding.
כי אין הנאה ותענוג לשכל נברא אלא במה שמשכיל ומבין ויודע ומשיג בשכלו ובינתו
The intellect of a created being delights and derives pleasure only in that which it conceives, understands, knows (— corresponding to ChaBaD) and grasps with its intellect and understanding,
מה שאפשר לו להבין ולהשיג מאור אין סוף ברוך הוא, על ידי חכמתו ובינתו יתברך המאירות שם, בעולם הבריאה
as much as it can grasp of the Blessed Ein Sof-light, through His wisdom and His understanding which radiate there (in Beriah), enabling the soul to perceive G dliness. For, as mentioned earlier, the ChaBaD of Atzilut (to which the Alter Rebbe refers as “His wisdom,” “ His understanding”) radiate in Beriah, for which reason Beriah is the “World of understanding.”
With this the Alter Rebbe concludes his statement that on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh the souls of other Jews (who had not served G d with intellectual love and fear) ascend to Beriah.
ומה שזוכות נשמות אלו לעלות למעלה מהמלאכים, אף שעבדו בדחילו ורחימו טבעיים לבד
These souls (who served G d with natural love and fear) are privileged to rise occasionally to Beriah, higher than the angels, whose abode is in Yetzirah, as mentioned above, never rising to Beriah, although they too, like the angels, served G d only with natural fear and love; why, then, is their service of G d considered superior to that of the angels?
היינו שעל ידי דחילו ורחימו שלהם, אתכפיא סטרא אחרא המלובשת בגופם
because through their fear and love, the sitra achra clothed in their body is subdued,
בין בבחינת סור מרע, לכבוש התאוות ולשברן
whether (in the case of fear) in the realm of “turning away from evil” (refraining from doing evil, and thereby) conquering and crushing their desires through not giving their illicit desires expression in thought, speech and action,
ובין בבחינת ועשה טוב, כנ״ל
or whether (in the case of love) subduing the sitra achra in the realm of “doing good” as mentioned above, i.e., actively pursuing the observance of the mitzvot out of love for G d, despite the contrary desire of the animal soul which is rooted in the sitra achra.
והם היו בעלי בחירה, לבחור ברע, חס ושלום
These souls, while in the physical world, had freedom of choice; they might have chosen evil, G d forbid,
ובחרו בטוב, לאכפיא לסטרא אחרא, לאסתלקא יקרא דקודשא בריך הוא כו׳ כיתרון האור כו׳, כנ״ל
yet they chose good — to subdue the sitra achra, so that G d’s glory be elevated... [in all Worlds], with an elevation similar to the superiority of light... [emerging from the darkness] over ordinary light, as mentioned above. By dispelling the darkness of sitra achra, these souls added to the light of holiness.
Thus, although these souls served G d as angels do, with love and fear that are natural, not intellectual, yet their service ranks higher than that of an angel; for the soul acts out of free choice, while the angel is a creature of compulsive instinct (albeit holy instinct). Therefore it is occasionally granted to the soul, unlike the angel, to rise to the Higher Garden of Eden in Beriah.
In the following paragraphs, the Alter Rebbe will differentiate between the respective stations of the souls on the one hand, and of their divine service (i.e., the actual Torah and mitzvot that the soul studies and observes) on the other. But before examining his words, an introduction is in order:
Although we spoke above of the Sefirot of each of the Four Worlds, it must nevertheless be understood that the Sefirot of each World do not constitute that World itself. The Sefirot represent, rather, the G dliness inherent in each World — its divine life-force. The World itself, on the other hand, is a Yesh, a separate being, which comes about through the Sefirot.
The significance of this distinction with regard to our discussion is as follows: The Alter Rebbe spoke above of the abode of the soul in either the World of Yetzirah or the World of Beriah (depending on the level of its divine service). The emphasis here is on the word “World”: the soul’s abode is in the World of Beriah or Yetzirah (also described as the heichalot (“Chambers”) of these Worlds), not in the Sefirot of these Worlds.
The soul’s divine service, on the other hand, ascends to the Sefirot (of the appropriate World); this means, in effect, that it is absorbed in the Ein Sof.
In fact, the soul’s reward in the Garden of Eden, described before as the pleasure of “basking in the radiance of the Shechinah,” is actually the radiance of the Torah and mitzvot that the person observed while in this physical world, which have ascended to the supernal Sefirot.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
והנה כל זה הוא במדור הנשמות ומקום עמידתן
All the aforesaid concerns the abode and station of the souls. (The Rebbe notes: “Station” is not necessarily synonymous with “abode”; a soul whose abode is in Yetzirah may rise periodically (on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh) to a temporary station in Beriah, as said above.)
אך תורתן ועבודתן נכללות בי׳ ספירות, שהן בחינת אלקות, ואור אין סוף מתייחד בהן בתכלית היחוד
Their Torah and divine service, however, are actually absorbed in the Ten Sefirot, which are a manifestation of G dliness, and with which the Ein Sof-light unites, in perfect unity i.e., the Ein Sof-light radiating in each World is completely unified with the Sefirot of that World.
והיינו בי׳ ספירות דבריאה על ידי דחילו ורחימו שכליים, ובי׳ ספירות דיצירה על ידי דחילו ורחימו טבעיים
Specifically, this means that one’s Torah and divine service ascend to the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, when generated by intellectual fear and love, and to the Ten Sefirot of Yetzirah when prompted by natural fear and love.
ובתוכן מלובשות י׳ ספירות דאצילות, ומיוחדות בהן בתכלית
Now, within them (within the Sefirot of Beriah and Yetzirah) are clothed the Ten Sefirot of the World of Emanation — Atzilut, and they are completely unified with them: the Sefirot of Atzilut are clothed in, and completely unified with, the Sefirot of Beriah and Yetzirah.
וי׳ ספירות דאצילות מיוחדות בתכלית במאצילן, אין סוף ברוך הוא
The Ten Sefirot of Atzilut are, in turn, perfectly united with their Emanator, the Blessed Ein Sof. It follows, then, that by ascending to the Sefirot of Beriah or Yetzirah, the soul’s Torah and divine service actually unite with the Ein Sof.
מה שאין כן הנשמות אינן נכללות באלקות די׳ ספירות
The souls, on the other hand (in contrast with their Torah and divine service), are not absorbed into the G dliness of the Ten Sefirot,
אלא עומדות בהיכלות ומדורין דבריאה או יצירה
but stand instead in the “chambers” and “abodes” of Beriah or Yetzirah, which are the Worlds of Beriah and Yetzirah, separate beings that are not united with G d as are the Sefirot.
ונהנין מזיו השכינה, הוא אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, ומיוחד בי׳ ספירות דבריאה או דיצירה
There [the souls] delight in the radiance of the Shechinah, meaning the Blessed Ein Sof-light [as it is] unified with the Ten Sefirot of Beriah or Yetzirah;
והוא זיו תורתן ועבודתן ממש עיין זהר, ויקהל, דף ר״י
and this radiance that they enjoy is actually a “ray” of [the light of] their own Torah and divine service (see Zohar, Parshat Vayakhel, p. 210),
כי שכר מצוה היא מצוה עצמה
for “The reward of a mitzvah is the mitzvah itself.”
A “ray” issuing from the mitzvot that they have performed, and that have become united with the Ein Sof, shines forth upon the tzaddikim in the Garden of Eden; it is the revelation of this ray that delights the soul.
From this we may catch a glimpse of the stature of a mitzvah performed in this world. From a mere glimmer of the light radiated by a mitzvah, a soul in Paradise derives pleasure so exquisite that, as our Sages say, all the suffering of Purgatory — a suffering so acute that one moment of it is worse than enduring seventy years of Job’s afflictions — is worthwhile, so long as it enables one subsequently to experience the boundless delight of Paradise.
In fact, were the soul when in Paradise to apprehend the essence of the mitzvah instead of a mere ray of it, it would expire — it would dissolve out of existence in the intensity of its light.
This is the meaning of the Mishnah,5 “Better one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the World to Come.” For in the World to Come the soul has only a glimmer of the light of mitzvot, whereas in this world we have the essence of mitzvot, whereby we are united with G d Himself.
The soul’s great pleasure in Paradise is due only to its clear perception of the ray of light given off by the mitzvah, a perception that we lack in this physical world; wherefore the Mishnah concludes, “Better one hour of bliss in the World to Come, than all the life of this world” — better even than the bliss of fulfilling the Torah and mitzvot in this world, for true bliss can be experienced only in Paradise, where the soul actually perceives and grasps the G dliness of the Torah and mitzvot.
FOOTNOTES
1. Yechezkel 1:10.
2. The divine service of angels, the Rebbe points out, would seemingly have no place in Tanya, whose purpose is to serve as a guide to Beinonim — a guide to every Jew’s service of G d.The simple reason, explains the Rebbe, is to emphasize the lofty level of Torah and mitzvot that are motivated by intelligent love and fear of G d. So sublime is this form of service, that it transcends the service of angels.
Moreover: Since this is a book written for Beinonim, the Alter Rebbe seeks to make it perfectly clear that it is “very nigh” — because it is innate — to every Jew to perform Torah and mitzvot with love and fear of G d experienced in the heart. An individual who attains this degree of natural love and fear of G d but lacks intellectual love and fear, should not be misled into thinking that his love and fear lacks intensity and consequently, his resultant actions are deficient as well. Rather, this degree of love and fear, too, is of remarkable intensity.
The Alter Rebbe makes his point by emphasizing that both the angels and the creatures of the Divine Chariot serve G d out of natural love and fear of Him. We are thus able to understand how great this manner of service truly it. It is deficient only in that it is an emotional form of service rather than an intellectual one.
However, with regard to service of G d being “very nigh in your heart,” natural love and fear fulfill this function admirably. Thus, every Jew is quite capable of revealing his latent love and fear of G d so that it emerge forcefully, for his love and fear is similar to the love and fear experienced by the angels and other celestial beings. This ensures that a Jew’s actions, which result from his feelings toward G d, be performed in a forceful manner as well, so that each and every Jew perform Torah and mitzvot with the inner life and vitality that stems from his love and fear of G d.
3. Iyov 32:8.
4. The Rebbe explains that the Alter Rebbe’s statement regarding an ascent from the lower to the higher level of Gan Eden by means of the “pillar” answers the following question:
How is it possible that there be an ascent from the level of “animal”, the lower level of the Garden of Eden, to the level of “man”, the higher level of the Garden of Eden? This is possible, says the Alter Rebbe, by means of the “pillar”. This also serves to demonstrate that though the higher and lower levels of the Garden of Eden are two distinct categories, it is nevertheless possible to ascend from one to the other.
-------
Rambam:• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 222
Divorce
"And he shall write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand"—Deuteronomy 24:1.
In the event that a couple decides to divorce, it is a mitzvah for the husband to effectuate the divorce through a bill of divorce, known as a get.
Divorce
Positive Commandment 222
Translated by Berel Bell
The 222nd mitzvah is that when we wish to divorce, we are commanded to do so only with a written document [i.e. a get].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), [that when a man wants to divorce his wife,] "he shall write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand."
The details of this mitzvah, i.e. all the laws of divorce, are found in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Gittin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:1.
________________________________________
Rambam:• 1 Chapter: Gezelah va'Avedah Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Ten
Gezelah va'Avedah - Chapter Ten
Halacha 1
The following law applies when a powerful and violent gentile took over property belonging to a Jew by force, seizing his field because the owner owed him a debt, caused him damages or caused him financial loss. If, after taking possession of the field, the gentile sold it to another Jew, the owner cannot expropriate it from the purchaser.
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? When the owner admits that the gentile who sold the property told the truth, or when two Jewish witnesses substantiate the truth of the gentile's claims.
Similarly, if there was a king or a ruler in that locale who could summon the gentile to court, and the owner did not lodge a claim against him, he cannot expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the gentile. This applies even though the owner does not admit the truth of the gentile's claim, and even though there are no witnesses that the gentile told the truth. For the purchaser can tell the owner: "If the gentile is a robber, why did you not sue him according to the laws of the land?"
Halacha 3
The following laws apply with regard to gentiles who oppress the Jewish people and seek to kill them, unless they ransom themselves from the gentiles by ceding title to a field or a home, and giving it to the gentiles in return for their release.
When the oppressor desires to sell this land and the owner has the means to purchase the property, he is given priority over all others. If the owner does not have the means to purchase the property, or the property has remained in the possession of the oppressor for more than twelve months, whoever comes first and purchases the property from the oppressor acquires it.
The purchaser must, however, give the original owner a fourth of the land or a third of the funds. For the oppressor sells the land cheaply; since the land is not his, he will sell it for approximately a fourth less than its value. This portion belongs to the original owner, because the reason it was sold cheaply was that it belonged to him.
Therefore, a person who acquires it from the oppressor for 30 zuz must pay 10 to the original owner or give him one fourth of the land. If this is done, the purchaser acquires full title to the land. If he fails to do this, the quarter of the land is considered to be property obtained by robbery.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply if a squatter enters a field belonging to a colleague without permission and plants trees there. If the field was one appropriate for trees to be planted, we evaluate how much a person would be willing to pay for trees to be planted in this field, and he collects this amount from the owner of the field. If this field is not suitable for planting, the squatter's improvement of the field should be evaluated, and he is judged at a disadvantage.
Halacha 5
Moreover, if the owner of the field tells the squatter: "Uproot your tree and go," the owner's wishes are heeded.If the squatter says: "I want to uproot my tree," his wishes are not heeded, because uprooting trees weakens the fertility of the land.
Halacha 6
Courtyards are considered to be appropriate for construction and to add homes and lofts. Therefore, the geonim ruled that a squatter who builds in a colleague's courtyard without his consent is regarded like a person who plants trees in a field appropriate for planting. If the building is useful and is appropriate for that courtyard according to the local custom, we evaluate how much a person would give to have such a building constructed and require the owner to pay that sum to the squatter.
Halacha 7
When a person enters a colleague's field with the latter's permission, his improvement of the field should be evaluated, and he should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due him. This applies even if he planted trees in a field that was unfit for planting.
If his expenses exceed the field's increase in value, he is reimbursed for his expenses. If the field's increase in value exceeds his expenses, he is reimbursed for the field's increase in value.
A husband who tills property belonging to his wife, and a partner who tills a field in which he owns a share are considered to have been given permission to enter the land. Their improvement of the field should be evaluated and they should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due them.
Halacha 8
When a squatter enters a field belonging to a colleague without permission and plants trees or builds there and the owner of the field comes afterwards and completes the building or guards the trees planted, or performs any other activity that indicates that he is pleased with the squatter's activity and considers it desirable, the squatter's improvement of the field should be evaluated and he should be given the advantage in evaluating the amount of money due him.
Halacha 9
When a squatter enters a ruined building belonging to a colleague and rebuilds it without permission, the improvement he has brought about should be evaluated, and he is judged at a disadvantage.
If the owner of the building says: "I am taking my stones and wood," his words are heeded with regard to a house,but this principle is not applied with regard to a field, for building and destroying a structure in a field weakens the fertility of the land.
If the owner of the land tells him: "Remove what you built,"his words are heeded.
Halacha 10
Whenever the improvements a person brought about are evaluated - whether he is judged at an advantage or at a disadvantage - he is not entitled to collect any money unless he first takes an oath while holding a sacred object, with regard to the amount of his expenses.
If he says: "Let the judges come and evaluate the expenses. Whatever I spent is in the open. Let them evaluate the worth of the wood, the stones, the mortar, and the wages of the workers according to the lowest standards," his request is accepted, and he is entitled to collect his due without taking an oath. Similarly, if a person collects only the value of the improvement of the property, and he is judged at an advantage, he is not required to take an oath.
Halacha 11
The following rule applies whenever the improvements a person made are to be evaluated and he is entitled to collect money, and the owner of the field claims to have paid him, and the person who tilled the field claims that he did not receive anything. The claim of the person who tilled the field is accepted. He must take an oath that he did not receive anything, and he is entitled to collect his due. For we tell the owner of the field: "An evaluation of what he is due was not made yet. Thus, you did not know how much you were obligated to give. How could you have paid him?"
A different rule applies, however, if the evaluation was already made and the owner of the field was told to pay a specific amount to the person who tilled it. If the owner of the field claims to have paid him, although the person who tilled the field has not taken an oath yet, the claim of the owner is accepted. The owner must take a Rabbinic oath that he paid, and then he is freed of liability. The rationale is that land is always considered to be in the domain of its rightful owner.
Halacha 12
The following laws apply when a husband brings sharecroppers to till property belonging to his wife and then he divorces her. If the husband is himself a sharecropper, their involvement is also terminated when the husband's involvement with the land is terminated, for they agreed to work the field on the husband's invitation. Their improvement of the field should be evaluated, and they are judged at a disadvantage.
If the husband is not a sharecropper and they agreed to work the field because it was necessary, they receive the share that is usually given to a sharecropper.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Four, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Five, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Six
Gerushin - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
A get may be written only with a substance that leaves a permanent impression - e.g., ink,1 sikra, kumus, kankantum2 or the like. If, however, [a get] is written with a substance that does not leave a permanent impression - e.g., beverages, fruit juices or the like - the get is void.
If [a get] is written with lead, a stylus or charcoal,3it is acceptable. At the outset, however, these substances should not be used.
Halacha 2
A priori, we may write with gallnut juice on paper, on a hide or the like. We may not use it to write on parchment that has been treated with gallnut juice, for it will not be distinct. If such a get is written, it is void. The same applies in all similar situations.
A get may be written on any substance, even a substance from which one is forbidden to benefit.4 We may write [a get] on a substance on which an erasure would not be noticed, provided it is given [to the woman] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer.5
Halacha 3
What is implied? If a get is written on paper with erasures,6 on parchment that has not been fully processed, on a shard, on leaves, on the arm of a servant or on the horn of a cow,7 [it is acceptable, provided the husband] gives [his wife] the servant, the cow,8 the paper, the parchment or the like in the presence of witnesses.
Halacha 4
When the get is tattooed on the hand of a servant,9the signature of the witnesses is also tattooed there,10 and he is in the possession of [the wife], the divorce is effective, even though there are no witnesses to [the servant's] transfer,11 for [the tattoo] cannot be forged.
Even when it is known to us that the servant [previously] belonged to the husband, the get is tattooed on his hand, and he is in the possession of the woman, and she says: "He was given to me in the presence of witnesses," the status of the divorce is in doubt.12 For the possession of living beings that can move independently is not considered proof of their ownership.13
Halacha 5
If a get is engraved on a tablet [with a stylus], and it is signed by witnesses, and [the tablet] is in [the woman's] possession, the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when it is known to us that the tablet [had previously] belonged to [the wife].14For a woman is allowed to write her get herself. The verification of a get is dependent on [the witnesses who] signed it, if there are no witnesses to its transfer.15
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when] a get is engraved on a board, on a stone or on a metal plate: If the scribe engraved the form of the letters,16 it is acceptable. This is considered writing, as [reflected by] the verse, [Jeremiah 17:1]: "Written with a pen of iron" - i.e., hewed out. Similarly, if one engraved the letters from the back of the plate until they projected from the front of the plate [the get is acceptable].
If, however, one hewed out the inside of the letter, [and the area around it,] until the form of the letter protruded on both sides, like the protruding writing on golden dinarim, the get is void, because this is not considered writing.17
Halacha 7
If one etches out the shape of letters on a hide,18 or one sketches the form of letters on a hide19 [the get is acceptable].20
A get may be written with any letters21 and in any language.22 A get that is written with the letters of one language and whose witnesses sign with the letters of another language is acceptable, provided the witnesses comprehend the language and the letters used.23
Halacha 8
If one of the witnesses signed the get with letters [from one language], and the other signed with letters of another language, the get is acceptable.24
If, however, a portion of the get is written in one language, and another portion is written in another language, it is unacceptable.25
Halacha 9
Regardless of the language in which a get is written, the scribe must be careful that the wording of the get does not allow for two meanings. It should not [leave] the reader [in doubt, wondering]: "Perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., something other than divorce - "or perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., divorce.26 Instead, [whatever] the language [of the get], the wording should unequivocally state one concept: that so and so divorces so and so.
Halacha 10
Similarly, regardless of the letters used, the penmanship [of the scribe] must be clear, so that children who know those letters would be able to read it. [The intent is] children who are not overly bright, nor those who are overly slow, but rather those of average intelligence.27
The writing should not be crooked, nor incoherent, lest one letter be confused with another, changing the meaning of the text.28
Halacha 11
If [the wording of a get] has two implications, or its writing is crooked or incoherent to the extent that it is possible to understand a different concept from it, it is unacceptable. [It is not void,] because it may be read as referring to a divorce and its meaning involves divorce.
Although a priori it is permissible to write a get in any language, it has already become universal Jewish practice to write gittin in Aramaic, using the following text.29
Halacha 12
This is the text of the get:
On this day of the week, on this day of the month, in this year from creation - or according to the chronology employed for legal documents30 - according to the reckoning that we keep here in [the name of the place where the get is being given], in the following way, I [the husband's name,] the son of [his father's name], from [the name of his city]31 or by whatever names or nicknames32 by which I, my father, my place or his place are called, desire out of independent will without anyone forcing me, to dismiss, to release, to divorce you, [the woman's name,] the daughter of [her father's name], from [the name of her city] or by whatever names or nicknames you, your father, your place or his place is known.33
[Although] previously, you were my wife, now I am dismissing, releasing and divorcing you, so that you have the license and the authority to go and marry any man whom you desire. No one will protest [your actions] from the present day onward. You are free [to marry] any man. This will serve you as a bill of divorce, a get dismissing you, and a letter releasing you, from me, according to the faith of Moses and Israel.
The witnesses sign below, as we explained:34 [The witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness, [the witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness.
Halacha 13
When a get is written using the above text and wording, [the following rules should be adhered to:] The word ודן should not be written with a yud, so that it might be read as ודין, which might be interpreted as meaning: "There will be a judgment between me and you."
The word ואגרת should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as ואי גרת, meaning "If you commit adultery."
The word למהך should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as לי מהך - i.e., that it is a joke for me.35
The words תהוייין and תצבייין should not be written with only two yuddin, lest a reader get the impression that the man is speaking with two women, and rather than divorce the one, he is divorcing two others.
Similarly, he should elongate the [latter] vav in the word וכדו lest it resemble a yud, which would cause the word to be read as uch'dei, in which instance, it would mean that "I am divorcing you on this condition." By the same token, he should elongate the vav in the words תרוכין and שבוקין, lest they resemble yuddin, in which instance it would mean that he is telling her that she is releasing and divorcing him.
In a similar fashion, care must be taken in every language and with every form of lettering to make certain that [the wording of the get] does not leave the possibility for two implications.
Halacha 14
If [a scribe] wrote [a get] using this text and did not elongate the vavin mentioned, did not write the extra yuddin, or wrote the yuddin that we said should not be written, the get is unacceptable.36 Similarly, [if a get is written] in another language, and imprecise wording or writing is used, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply if] a letter or a word of a get was rubbed out or written between the lines. If it is from the standard portion of the get, it is acceptable. If it is from the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance, the get is void. If, however, at the conclusion of the get, it is stated that the particular letter has been written between the lines or has been rubbed out, the get is acceptable, as other legal documents would be,37 even if [the difficulty] concerns the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance.38
Similarly, if a get was discovered to be torn [both] horizontally and vertically, as is customary for a court [to tear a legal document], the get is void, as would be other legal documents.39 If, however, it is torn in a way other than the manner customary for a court [to tear a legal document], it is acceptable.
Halacha 16
If [the get] has faded, rotted or become [filled with holes like] a sieve, it is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] it has been rubbed out or the letters have become blurred, but their form remains. If it can be read, it is acceptable;40 if not, it is void.
Halacha 17
When does the above41 apply? When the woman is in possession of a get that has been signed by witnesses, and there are no witnesses to its transfer. If, however, there are witnesses who testify that the get was transferred in their presence, and at that time it was acceptable, the divorce is binding.42
[This applies] even if the fundamental portions of the get were written on erased parchment or between the lines, or [the get] was torn [both] horizontally and vertically when it was given to [the woman] in their presence.43
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when] five men write a single get to divorce their five wives. The get is acceptable if the wording they use is inclusive - i.e., they wrote "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so, and so and so divorced so and so..." - every husband making a statement to his wife. Similarly, each of them told his wife: "so that you have the license to...," including the entire standard portion of the get. Two witnesses must sign below.
[This get] must be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer. If no witnesses observe its transfer at all, the woman who is in possession of the get is considered to be divorced.44
[Different rules apply if,] by contrast, [the scribe] wrote: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," completing the entire text of the get and then began writing a second get directly under it in the same scroll. [He continued] writing: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," and so completed the entire text of the second get and similarly completed all the gittin in this manner [on the same scroll], and the witnesses signed below [the final get].
If this scroll was given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, all their divorces are effective.45 [More stringent rules apply] if there are no witnesses who observed the transfer, and the scroll is in the possession of one of the women: If hers was the last get written on the scroll and the signatures of the witnesses are read together with [that statement], her divorce is effective.46 If the scroll is in the possession of one of the women whose gittin precede the last one, the status of her divorce is in doubt.
Halacha 19
If [the scribe] writes: "We, so and so and so and so, divorce our wives, so and so and so and so,..." and then completes the get, the get is void, even though it was given to each one of them in the presence of witnesses who observed its transfer. [The rationale:] two women cannot be divorced with the same get, as [we can infer from Deuteronomy 24:1]: "And he shall write for her," [implied is:] for her and not for her and her colleague.
If after [writing the text as above], he continued and wrote individual statements for each one within the get, stating, "So and so is divorcing so and so, and so and so is divorcing so and so on this date,"47 the divorces are acceptable.
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when a scribe] wrote two gittin in two columns on one scroll side by side. If there are two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] one get, and two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] the other get, the get is acceptable.48 Whichever woman is in possession of the get is divorced.49
Halacha 21
[In the above instance, if the gittin] were signed by only two witnesses, who signed across the width of both gittin, the divorce is valid only when the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear.50
If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures of the witnesses do not appear, the get is not acceptable unless it is given to her in the presence of witnesses [who observe the transfer].51
Halacha 22
[The following rules apply if a scribe] writes two gittin, one above the other, and the witnesses sign between the two gittin - their signatures thus being below the first get and above the second get. If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear, her divorce is valid, and the woman above whose get the signatures appear is not divorced.52
If the witnesses signed at the top of a get, at its side or on its overside, it is not a get.53 If it was given to [the woman] in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable.54
Halacha 23
If two gittin [were written in an arc,] with the beginning of one get facing the beginning of the other get, and the signature of the witnesses is located between the tops of both gittin, both are void. If they are transferred in the presence of witnesses, both are acceptable.
Halacha 24
[The following rules apply if the scribe did not complete the text of the get in one column,] left a portion unwritten and wrote it at the top of a second column. If the witnesses signed below, at the end of the second column, it is acceptable, provided it is obvious that the scroll was not cut off, and it was the scribe's intent to complete the get in the second column.
If, however, this is not apparent, the status of the divorce is in doubt, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses. [The rationale is that] perhaps there were two gittin, and the portion below the get in the first column and a portion above the get in the second column were cut off.55
Halacha 25
If, after writing the get and completing it, [the scribe] wrote: "Give regards to so and so," "Greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, and afterwards the witnesses signed beneath the greeting, the status of the divorce is doubtful,56 despite the fact that the woman is in possession of the get. [The rationale is] perhaps the witnesses signed only for the greeting [without paying attention to the get].
If, however, the scribe wrote: "And give regards to so and so," "And greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, the get is acceptable. Since [the greeting] accompanies the get,57 [we presume that the witnesses] signed with both these thoughts in mind.
If [the get] was given to her in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable in either instance.58
FOOTNOTES
1.In Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, the Rambam describes the process by which ink is made as follows:
One collects the vapor of oils, of tar, of wax or the like, [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with sap from a tree and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried and then stored.
When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] in gallnut juice or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to.
2.In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:3, the Rambam mentions three Arabic terms for these words. Rav Kapach explains the meaning as follows: sikra refers to red clay that is used for painting. Kumus and kankantum are two similar substances, yellow and green powders, which when mixed with gallnut juice produce a black substance. Other commentaries offer different interpretations.
3.Our translation of these terms is based on the Aruch, as quoted by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 125:2).
4.The Beit Shmuel 124:1 explains that, a priori, the Rambam allows a get to be written on a substance from which we are forbidden to benefit. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 124:1) differs and follows the opinion of Tosafot, which states that it is only after the fact that such a get is acceptable. The Ramah adds that if we are obligated to destroy the substance on which the get was written, the get is void.
5.The Rambam rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is valid even when it was given without witnesses' observing the transfer (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). In this instance, however, even he maintains that witnesses must observe the transfer, for it is possible that the signatures of the witnesses on the get could be forged (Chelkat Mechokek 124:2).
6.The difficulty with a get written on a parchment with erasures is that the text can be erased again and additions or deletions made without making a noticeable difference in the final product. Thus, stipulations could be added to the get, or the signatures of the witnesses altered. Similarly, changes could be made to a get written on any of the other substances that follow.
Another type of legal document written on such parchment would not be acceptable. The laws pertaining to a get are different, for in this instance the purpose of the document is not to serve as proof of the divorce, but instead to effect the dissolution of the marriage bond. The purpose of other legal documents, by contrast, is to serve as an account of the transactions they record.
7.As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one may not detach the horn from the cow after the get was written on it, before giving the cow to the woman.
8.Normally mesirah, transferring the reigns of an animal, is not an acceptable means of acquiring a cow, as stated in Hilchot Mechirah 3:5. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, because the fundamental purpose of this transaction is not to transfer the cow, but to transfer the get (Hafla'ah; see also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 9, Halachah 3).
9.As reflected by a comparison to the second clause, this law applies when it is known that the servant belonged to the woman (Beit Shmuel 124:17). (See the notes on the following halachah.)
10.The commentaries question why the signature of the witnesses is significant, for by tattooing the servant they have committed a transgression that disqualifies them from serving as witnesses.
11.In this instance, the situation parallels the law described in Chapter 1, Halachah 16, which rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is acceptable, even when there are no witnesses to its transfer.
12.See the Chelkat Mechokek 124:19, which states that if there are witnesses to the transfer of the servant, or the husband admits that the servant was given to the woman, the divorce is effective.
13.See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 10:1.
14.Although the article on which the husband has the get written must belong to him, there is no difficulty in this instance, as will be explained.
15.We assume that the witnesses who signed the get would have signed it only after verifying that the woman gave the tablet to her husband for the purpose of the divorce.
16.I.e., he hewed out the lines that would normally be written.
17.I.e., the letter is formed by working around the letter, and not on the form of the letter itself. This law has a corollary that is applicable to contemporary halachah. If ink spills near a letter, the shape of the letter may not be formed by scratching out the ink blotch (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 125:8).
18.Without writing.
19.In this instance, the writing will not remain permanently, but instead will be rubbed out in a short time. For this reason, the Rambam rules in Hilchot Shabbat 11:16 that sketching on a hide is not considered writing. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there is nothing lacking in the writing itself, the Rambam deems the get acceptable.
20.See the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:5), which mentions that there are some authorities who rule that etching is acceptable and sketching unacceptable, and others who accept sketching and disqualify etching.
21.I.e., one may use Rashi script, rather than ordinary Hebrew writing (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 126:1). Indeed, in one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that his teacher, Rav Yosef Migash, preferred having a get written in Rashi script rather than using the letters used in writing a Torah scroll. The univeral custom at present, however, is to use the Assyrian script with which Torah scrolls are written [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:1)].
22.I.e., there is no requirement to write it in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, for centuries, it has been customary to use the standard Aramaic text quoted by the Rambam later on in this chapter.
23.In Chapter 1, Halachah 23, the Rambam allows a get to be read for the witnesses. Nevertheless, in this instance the Rambam requires the witnesses to read the get themselves. Since signing in another language is already a departure from the norm, no further leniency is granted (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
24.Gittin 9:7 gives an example of one witness signing in Greek and the other in Hebrew. Even though the two languages use different characters, and even require writing in different directions, the get is acceptable.
Each of the witnesses' signatures is a separate and independent statement. Therefore, there is no need for the two signatures to be in the same language. The get, by contrast, is a single unit and must be written in one language (Kessef Mishneh).
25.This ruling is accepted by all authorities. Although the standard text of the get that is universally employed uses both Aramaic and Hebrew, this does not represent a contradiction. Our Sages explain that since both these languages were used at Mount Sinai, they are considered to be a single tongue (Ramah, Even HaEzer 126:1).
26.See Halachah 13 for examples of wording that could create such doubt.
27.See Hilchot Tefillin 1:19, which states that when a question arises concerning the writing for the parchments of the tefillin, a determination may be made on the basis of the reading of such a child.
28.See Halachah 13 for examples of steps taken to prevent such confusion from arising.
29.This basic text was already employed during the Talmudic era. At present, the later authorities in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities have suggested minor emendations to the text quoted by the Rambam. As such, there are two standard gittin employed in Eretz Yisrael today.
30.This refers to the years dating back to the beginning of Alexander the Great's kingdom, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 27.
31.I.e., the city in which he dwells, not the city in which he was born (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 128:2). The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating "At present, when we are constantly being exiled and must wander, our place of residence is not defined." Instead, if the man is present at the composition of the get, it is written "who is located at present in this and this place."
32.The Ashkenazi custom is not to employ this phrase and instead to specify all the names by which a person is called (Ramah, Even HaEzer 129:1).
33.The concepts mentioned in the notes above with regard to the husband's place and names also apply with regard to his wife's.
34.Chapter 1, Hilchot 15, 18, et al. In many manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, the phrases that follow are omitted, leading some to consider them to be the additions of a printer.
35.Some texts of the Mishneh Torah also include the statement that space should be left between the leg of the heh and its roof. According to that text, לי מהך "for me, from now on."
36.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the get is unacceptable only when the husband protests and maintains that he intentionally had the scribe make such a mistake. If he does not issue such a protest, the get is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh also mentions that there is a difference if the woman subsequently married on the basis of the get or not, and the Tur states that the get may be disqualified on this basis only if the husband writes it himself, or the scribe writes it in response to his explicit instructions.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:22) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also mentions that of the Ra'avad and the Tur. An exception, however, is made with regard to writing the three yuddin in the words תצבייין and תהוייין. If only two yuddin are written, the get is acceptable. (See also the Beit Shmuel 126:32.)
37.See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 27:8.
38.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:19) states that at present it is customary to discard a get with a portion that has been rubbed out, instead of adding this line at the conclusion of the get. If, however, there is no alternative, a get is acceptable with an erasure, even if there is no explanation at the end, for we rely on the witnesses who observe the transfer (Beit Shmuel 125:35).
39.The Ra'avad states that if the get had been certified by the court, it is acceptable even if it is torn in the above manner. The rationale is that we assume that the get was torn so that the woman would not be able to use it to demand payment of her ketubah a second time. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:20), and the Ra'avad's clarification is mentioned by the Chelkat Mechokek 125:41.
40.As reflected by the following halachah, this refers to an instance in which the get was given when it was acceptable, and its condition deteriorated afterwards.
41.I.e., the disqualifications mentioned in the previous two halachot.
42.This represents a difference between gittin and other legal documents, as reflected in Halachah 3 and notes (Maggid Mishneh).
43.The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that if the get is faded to the point that it cannot be read at the time it is transferred, the fact that the transfer is observed by witnesses is to no avail, and the divorce is void.
He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba, who states that a get that is torn vertically and horizontally before it is given to the woman is not acceptable. He does not, however, accept that decision. His rulings are paralleled by those of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:21), which mentions both the Rambam's and the Rashba's views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam.
44.The others, by contrast, are not considered to be divorced, for we have no proof that the woman's husband in fact gave her this get. (See Gittin 86b.)
45.I.e., no attention is paid to the witnesses who signed the get. Each of the women received a get that was written in acceptable manner, and whose transfer was observed by witnesses. This is sufficient for a divorce to be acceptable.
46.For hers is an acceptable get, signed by witnesses. We are not concerned with the fact that the scroll contains other gittin above it.
47.The get is acceptable only if the date that is stated in the beginning of the get is restated in the individual statement written for each woman. (See Beit Shmuel 130:13.)
48.If the get is given to both women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, both are divorced (Maggid Mishneh).
49.Even when there are no witnesses who observe the transfer.
50.I.e., under the first column, the witness signed "Ya'akov, the son of," and in the second column he continued "Yitzchak, a witness." The second witness did the same. In this instance, the witnesses have signed under the first get. If the witnesses signed their first names under one column, and signed "the son of so and so" in the second column, both gittin would be acceptable. For "the son of Ya'akov" is an acceptable signature."
This interpretation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 9:6). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:8) offers a slightly different interpretation.
51.I.e., the fact that the names of the fathers of the witnesses are located under the woman's get does not cause it to be considered a get with false signatures. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 130:8.)
52.These laws apply even when there are no witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll. If there are witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll to the second woman, even the second get is acceptable.
If the scroll is in the possession of the woman above whose get the witnesses sign, both the gittin are unacceptable unless there are witnesses who observed their transfer.
53.When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:4) states that the get is pasul, unacceptable. That term implies that it is the Rabbis who disqualified the use of such a get, while according to Scriptural law it is acceptable.
54.The fact that the witnesses did not sign in the proper place does not make the get invalid.
55.And thus a portion of the get that the woman receives would not have been written for her sake. For this reason, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, it is not acceptable unless the witnesses testify that the get was originally written in two columns (Maggid Mishneh).
56.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:3) uses the term pasul, "unacceptable," meaning that the get was disqualified by Rabbinic decree alone. (See Beit Shmuel 130:4.)
57.The word "and" (in Hebrew, the letter vav) establishes a connection between the two, and the greeting is not considered to be a separate entity.
58.In the first instance, even if we were to assume that the intent of the witnesses was to sign on the greeting, that does not disqualify the get. It is acceptable when given in the presence of witnesses.
Gerushin - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
The Torah's expression, [Deuteronomy, 24:1]: "He will... place it in her hand," need not be interpreted only [according to its strict literal meaning], that the get must be placed in her hand. Regardless of whether the get is placed in her hand, her bosom or her courtyard, or is given to her agent whom she charged that his hand would be as her hand, the same law applies.1
The same laws apply to a courtyard that she acquired, one that she rented or one that is lent to her. They are all considered to be her property, and once the get reaches her property, the divorce is effective.
Halacha 2
[The following laws apply when a man] throws a get for his wife into her courtyard. If she is standing next to her courtyard, the divorce is effective.2 If she is not standing next to her courtyard, the divorce is not effective until she stands next to her courtyard.3
[These principles apply] even when the get will be guarded in the courtyard in which [it is placed]. [The rationale is that] divorce is considered to be a liability [and not an advantage] for [a woman]. And a liability may not be invoked against [a person] outside his [or her] presence.4
Halacha 3
[These rules apply when a get is given in the following situation. A woman] is standing on her roof, and [her husband] is standing in his courtyard that is located below it. He throws a get upwards to her.
Once the get reaches the space of the guardrail [to her roof] or comes within three handbreadths5 of the roof [when her roof does not have a guardrail], the divorce is effective.6 [This applies provided the get ultimately] comes to rest on her roof.7
If, however, [the writing of the get] is erased or [the get] is consumed by fire before it reaches her, the divorce is not effective. [This applies] even if the get is erased or consumed by fire after it passes the barriers of the woman's property or after it reaches within three handbreadths of her roof. [The rationale is that] since the get will never come to rest [in a complete state], it is void.
Halacha 4
[Different rules apply when] the roof belongs to the husband and he stands on it, while his wife stands below in a courtyard that belongs to her, and he throws her a get. Once the get passes the boundaries of his property and enters the boundaries of her property, where she is standing, the divorce is binding.8
Halacha 5
If, however, he throws a get into a fire located on the woman's property and it is consumed by the flames, or into water and it is erased or lost, the get is void.9 If, however, it enters her property (and comes to rest),10 and afterwards fire comes and consumes it, the divorce is effective.
Halacha 6
When the husband tosses the get on top of a reed or a spear implanted in her domain,11 the divorce is not effective until [the get] comes to rest in a place that is protected by her.12
[The following rule applies when] there are two courtyards, the inner courtyard belongs to the woman, the outer courtyard belongs to the man, and the walls of the outer courtyard are taller than those of the inner courtyard. If [the husband] throws the get into the space [of the inner courtyard, above its walls, but lower than the walls] of the outer courtyard, the divorce is effective.13 [The rationale is] the inner [courtyard] is protected by the walls of the outer [courtyard]. This concept does not apply with regard to containers.
Halacha 7
What is implied?14 There are two containers, located one inside the other [and both are located in the husband's domain].15 The inner container belongs to her and the outer container belongs to him. If [the husband] throws the get to [his wife] toward the containers, the divorce is not effective16 - even when the get reaches the space of the inner container - until it comes to rest on the side of the inner container.
[Moreover,] the above applies only when [the woman's container] is lying on its side and does not have a bottom.17 If it has a bottom, even if [the get] comes to rest on that bottom, the divorce is not effective.18 For when a container belonging to a woman is located in the domain of the husband, the woman may not acquire a get by means of it unless the husband is not concerned about the place it occupies.
Halacha 8
When [a husband] throws a get to his wife while she is located in his house or in his courtyard, the divorce is not effective until the get reaches the woman's hand or a container that belongs to her, to whose presence within his domain the husband does not object - e.g., a small bottle or basket or the like.19
Similarly, if the get reaches a couch belonging to her20 on which she is sitting that is ten handbreadths high, the divorce is effective. For [the couch] is considered to be a separate domain,21 and the husband does not object to the place taken by its legs.22
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] the husband lends his wife a place in his courtyard [for the purpose of receiving her get], without defining its borders.23 If he throws her the get and it reaches within four cubits of where she is standing, the divorce is effective.24
When [in the above instance, the get] rolled away [from the place where the woman is standing,] and fell on a beam or on a rock further removed from her,25 [the following rules apply]. If the place where [the get] fell is not four cubits by four cubits, nor is it ten [handbreadths] high, nor does it have a separate name of its own, it is not considered to be a distinct entity, and it is as if [the get] and [the woman] were in the same place. [Therefore, the divorce is effective.]
If the place is characterized by any of these three factors, it is considered to be a distinct entity. [Since] the husband lent the woman one place, but not two places, the divorce is not effective until the get reaches her hand.
Halacha 10
If [the husband] throws the get to her [while she is in her domain], and [the get] passes through the domain and falls outside her domain [the divorce is not effective]. Even if the get passes within three [handbreadths] of the ground,26 the divorce is not effective27 until [the get] comes to rest in her domain.
Halacha 11
[The following rule applies when a woman] is standing on her roof, [her husband] throws her [a get], and [instead of reaching her,] it falls on a roof [belonging to another person].28 If the woman can stretch out her hand and take it, the divorce is effective.
[The rationale is that] although the domains are divided above as they are divided below, [and thus the get is located on a domain that does not belong to the woman, this is not significant,] for people are not concerned with [a neighbor's making use of] their property in such a manner.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply if a woman holds] her hand at an incline, [her husband] throws a get to her hand, and it falls to the earth. If it falls within four cubits of where she is standing and comes to rest there, the divorce is effective.29
When, [however, the get] falls into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is not effective, if she is standing next to the water or the fire [when the get is thrown to her]. [The rationale is] that, at the outset, it would be destroyed as it fell.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a husband] throws a get to [his wife] in the public domain or in a domain that does not belong to either of them. If [the get] is "close to him," the divorce is not effective. If [the get] is partially "close to him," and partially "close to her," the status of the divorce is in doubt unless it is definitely close to her. If [the get] is close enough to her that she can bend down and pick it up, the divorce is unacceptable [according to Rabbinic decree].30 [Only when] the get reaches her hand may she remarry on this basis a priori.
Halacha 14
What is meant by "close to him"? That he could protect the get while she could not. If both are able to protect [the get], or both are unable to protect it, it is considered to be partially "close to him," and partially "close to her."31
Halacha 15
[If a husband] comes to a place first and stands there, and then [his wife] comes and stands opposite him, the divorce is not effective if he throws her [a get] and [it falls] within his four cubits,32 even if she can bend down and pick it up.
If she comes to the place first and stands, and then he comes and stands opposite her and throws it to her, even when [the get] is partially "close to him" and partially "close to her," the get is [merely] deemed unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree] because it is within her four cubits.33 [Only when] the get reaches her hand [is the divorce effective a priori].
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when a husband] throws a get that is tied with a string into [his wife's] hand and he remains holding the other end of the string. If he can pull [the get from her hand] and bring it back to him,34 the divorce is not effective35 until he snaps the string.36 If he cannot pull [the get from her], the divorce is effective.
Halacha 17
[The following rules apply when a husband] gives [a woman's] get to a servant belonging to her. If he is awake, he is bound and she is guarding him, the divorce is effective. It is considered to be as if [the get] were placed in a courtyard belonging to her and she is standing at its side. If [the servant] is not bound, the divorce is not effective.37
If [the husband] places [the get] in the servant's hand while he is sleeping, and [the woman] is guarding him, the get is unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree].38 If [the servant] is bound, the divorce is acceptable.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply if a husband] writes a get, places it in the hand of a servant belonging to him and writes a deed for the woman, giving her the servant as a present. If the servant is bound, the divorce is effective, for when she acquires the servant she also acquires the get. If the servant is unbound and awake, [the woman] acquires the servant; the divorce, however, is not effective until the get reaches her hand.39
Similarly, if [a man] placed a get in a courtyard belonging to him and sold or gave the courtyard to [his wife], the divorce is effective once she acquires the courtyard by virtue of the transfer of a deed or money, or by manifesting her ownership over it.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Numbers 21:26, which uses the word miyado - literally, "from his hand" - as meaning "from his possession." A similar usage is frequent within the Torah and within Talmudic sources.
It must, however, be emphasized that the accepted practice is to place the get in the woman's hand and not to remain content with depositing it in her courtyard. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 139:14.)
2.With regard to a courtyard, a point of clarification is necessary. In general, the benefit from a woman's property belongs to her husband, and whatever is acquired by her property belongs to him. In this instance, however, we say that the acquisition of the bill of the divorce and the right to acquire the articles placed in her property become hers simultaneously.
3.The Rambam's wording implies, however, that when the woman returns to her courtyard, the divorce is effective. Rav Meir HaLevi, as quoted by the Tur (Even HaEzer 139) differs and maintains that the woman must be present at the time the get is placed in her courtyard. If she is not present at that time, Rav Meir HaLevi maintains that the divorce is not effective unless the husband waits and tells the woman: "This is your get," when she picks it up, or the husband must pick it up and give it to her again.
The Rashba submits a third opinion. He maintains that the status of the divorce is doubtful, for perhaps the woman desired the divorce. (See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:2-3 and commentaries.)
4.When considering something which is to a person's advantage - e.g., the acquisition of an ownerless object - a person may perform this act on behalf of a colleague without his knowledge, for our Sages postulated: "one may act to a person's advantage outside his presence." The rationale is that the person would probably desire to acquire the object. When, however, a liability is considered, this principle does not apply. Nevertheless, if a woman explicitly states that a get should be placed in her courtyard, the divorce is effective even when she is not standing next to it (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 139).
5.In many different halachic contexts, three handbreadths of empty space is considered to be a continuation of the nearest significant halachic entity. This principle is referred to by the name l'vud.
6.Since it will ultimately come to rest within her property, it is considered as though it has already come to rest.
Accordingly, from this time onward, even if the husband changes his mind and desires to nullify the divorce before the get reaches the ground, he no longer has that option. The divorce is effective and the marriage bond has been broken. If a second man consecrates her at this time, she is considered to be his wife (Maggid Mishneh).
7.Most other authorities differ with the Rambam on this point and maintain that as soon as the get enters the woman's possession, the divorce is effective, even though afterwards it is consumed by fire or its writing is wiped away by water, provided the fire or the water was not there before the husband threw the get. [Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 8:3), the Rambam does not mention the provision that ultimately the get must come to rest.] Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:4-5) mentions the Rambam's view, it is the approach of the other authorities that is favored.
8.I.e., immediately, even if the get does not reach the woman's property. The rationale is that as long as the conditions mentioned in the following halachah are met, it may be assumed that the laws of gravity will prevail, and the get will come to rest in the woman's property. Therefore, even if it is destroyed by a fluke occurrence beforehand, the divorce is effective (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:6).
9.Since he initially threw the get into the fire, it is considered as though it will never come to rest and will never enter the woman's possession in a complete state.
10.The phrase set off by parentheses is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah, but is lacking in many authentic manuscripts and early printings. Eliminating the phrase would imply that there is a difference between the situation described in Halachah 4 and that described in Halachah 3.
This indeed is the Maggid Mishneh's contention. As he explains, in Halachah 3 the husband is throwing the get against the natural gravitational pattern that prevails within the world, while in Halachah 4 the get is being thrown in a manner that conforms with the pattern of gravity. Therefore, as long as the get was not thrown into fire or water, the divorce is binding as soon as the get enters the woman's domain.
11.The commentaries on Gittin 79a explain that this refers to an instance where the top of the reed or the spear is higher than the walls of the courtyard.
12.For the wind may blow it outside the courtyard.
13.Since the get will be protected by the walls of the outer courtyard even within the inner courtyard, if it is thrown toward the inner courtyard the divorce is effective after it enters the space of the outer courtyard (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:9).
14.There are two differences between courtyards and containers located in the husband's domain: a) With regard to the courtyard, it is sufficient for the get to enter the space of the husband's courtyard. With regard to a container, by contrast, this is not sufficient.
b) Even when a get comes to rest within a container, the divorce is not effective, except in the specific instance mentioned by the Rambam.
The rationale for both these differences is that the walls of a courtyard are made primarily for protecting the articles contained within, and in the above instance the walls of the outer courtyard also protect the articles within the inner courtyard. In contrast, the function of the wall of a container is to hold the object it contains (Rashi, Gittin 79b).
15.The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. There are other commentaries that maintain that the containers are located in the woman's domain or in a neutral domain. (See Beit Shmuel 139:13 and the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on those comments.)
16.The fundamental principle involved here is that a person cannot acquire an object by virtue of its being placed in a container belonging to him, if that container is located in a domain belonging to the giver, unless the giver is not concerned with the presence of the recipient's container. (See Hilchot Mechirah 4:1.)
It must be emphasized that this concept is not accepted by Rabbenu Asher and the Tur. (See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 200:3 and commentaries.)
17.When a container is lying on its side and it does not have a bottom, it will not serve a functional purpose. Therefore, the husband will not be concerned that it is placed in his property. As such, if the get comes to rest on it, the divorce is effective.
18.In this instance, the woman's container will serve a functional purpose. Therefore, it is likely that the husband will object to its presence on his property.
It must be emphasized that Tosafot, the Ra'avad, Rabbenu Nissim and others interpret the passage in Gittin, loc. cit., differently from the Rambam. It is, however, the Rambam's view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:9).
19.Rashi (Gittin 77a) explains that a man must assume that a woman will bring such articles with her when she enters a domain. Therefore, the husband's acceptance of the woman's presence also implies a willingness to allow her to bring in such articles.
20.If, however, the couch belongs to the husband, the divorce is not effective unless the get is given to the woman, even when the woman is sitting on the couch.
21.Since the couch is ten handbreadths (80 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, 96 centimeters according to Chazon Ish) high, it is considered to be a separate entity. (See a parallel concept in Hilchot Kri'at Shema 3:9.)
22.Note the Maggid Mishneh, which explains that in other situations - e.g., a couch belonging to a purchaser that is in the domain of a seller - this concept would not necessarily apply, and the transfer would not be considered effective. (Note Beit Shmuel 139:15.)
23.If he specified a place, the get would have to be deposited in that place.
24.For we assume that the place where the woman is standing is the place that she was granted.
25.Our translation is based on the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling offered by Rabbenu Nissim. The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's rulings, interpreting his approach as implying that if the place where the get comes to rest is within four cubits of the woman, it would appear that the divorce should be effective even if any of these factors applies. And if the place is further removed, the divorce is never effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:11) rules according to other authorities, who interpret this passage according to the interpretation offered by Rabbenu Nissim. The interpretation of the Rambam's words offered by the Maggid Mishneh is mentioned as a minority opinion.
26.Based on the principle of l'vud, three handbreadths is an extension of any given entity. Nevertheless, since, as happened, the get did not come to rest within the woman's domain, the fact that it passed through it close to the ground is not significant. This same principle is cited in several other contexts - e.g., Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:9. See also Hilchot Shabbat 13:16.
27.The Tur (Even HaEzer 139) maintains that, as appears from Bava Metzia 12a, the matter is the subject of an unresolved Talmudic debate. Hence, the status of the divorce is a matter of doubt, and although the woman may not consider herself to be divorced, she may not continue living with her first husband, and if she was consecrated by another person, he is required to divorce her before she may marry anyone else.
28.Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ra'avad and others interpret Gittin 79b, the source for this halachah, as referring to two roofs belonging to the husband, and explain that it teaches a concept similar to that reflected by Halachah 9. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:12) mentions the Rambam's view, it favors the other interpretation.
29.In certain circumstances, our Sages ordained although a person is standing in property that does not belong to him, the four cubits around him [or her] are considered to be his courtyard. And placing an article within that space is considered to be placing it in his domain. (See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:9.) Therefore, just as if the get in a woman's courtyard had come to rest in the woman's courtyard, the divorce would be effective, so too it is effective if it comes to rest within four cubits of her.
If the get does not come to rest within four cubits of the woman, one might say that the outcome is dependent on the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Tur mentioned in the notes on Halachah 10. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:15) follows the opinion of the Tur and rules that the status of the divorce is doubtful.
30.In this instance, if the woman erred and remarried she is not forced to divorce her second husband. If, however, she remarried when the status of the divorce is in doubt, she may not remain married to her second husband.
31.The Rambam does not mention an instance where the woman can protect the get but the husband cannot, and yet it is not close enough to her for her to bend down and pick it up. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would maintain that in such an instance the status of the divorce is doubtful.
Although with regard to kiddushin, in such an instance the Rambam rules that a marriage bond is established (Hilchot Ishut 4:22), the laws are more stringent with regard to divorce. The Beit Shmuel 139:22 states that most other authorities would differ and would agree that according to Scriptural law, the divorce is effective in such an instance; it is disqualified only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.
32.Whenever an area becomes considered to be the "four cubits" belonging to one individual, another person may not acquire an article in that area until the first person departs (Gittin 78a).
33.I.e., according to Scriptural law the divorce is effective, because the four cubits in which the woman is standing become her exclusive property.
34.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:2) interprets the intent as being that the knot tying the string to the get must be attached in a manner strong enough to allow the get to be pulled back to the husband. If it is tied loosely, the divorce is effective. If, however, it is the woman who prevents the husband from drawing back the get by clasping it within her hand, the divorce is not effective. The Shulchan Aruch does, however, mention another view, which rules the divorce acceptable in such an instance.
35.Gittin 78b also derives this concept from the description of a divorce in Deuteronomy 24:3: "And he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand...." As long as the husband can retake possession of the bill of divorce, he has not severed his connection with the woman.
36.If, however, the husband does snap the string, the Rambam rules the divorce to be effective. Other commentaries differ, explaining that since the giving of the get was not carried out in the proper manner, the get must be given again for the divorce to be acceptable.
37.Since the servant has an independent will, he is considered to be a courtyard that is not guarded by the woman herself. Also, the conception of a domain as equivalent to a person's hand applies only when that domain remains still and not when, as in the case of a servant, it moves.
Based on a difference in the version of Gittin 78a, the source for this halachah, the Tur (Even HaEzer 139) and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that it is necessary for the servant to be both bound and asleep for the divorce to be effective. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:16) quotes both opinions, the Rambam's view appears to be favored.
38.I.e., since the servant was not bound, the Sages disqualified the divorce, lest one give a get to a servant while awake and unbound.
39.The Rambam's wording implies that once the servant gives her the get, however, the divorce is effective. It is not necessary for the husband to take the get from the servant and give it to her. As mentioned by the Beit Shmuel 139:29, this point is not accepted by all authorities.
Gerushin - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
An agent who is appointed by a woman to receive her get from her husband is called a receiving agent (sh'liach kabbalah). When the get reaches this agent's hand, the divorce is completed,1 as if it has reached the hands of the woman herself.
[The agent] must be appointed in the presence of two witnesses, and two witnesses must be present when the get is conveyed to the agent. Even if the second pair of witnesses is the same as the first pair, or one of them is from the first pair, they are acceptable as witnesses.
Halacha 2
When does the above2 apply? When the get is lost or torn. If, however, the get is in the possession of the sh'liach kabbalah, there is no need for witnesses. This applies whether the get was given by the husband in private, or it was given in the presence of witnesses. The presence of the get in the possession of the agent is equivalent to its presence in the possession of the woman.3 Nevertheless, a priori, the get should be given only in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer, as is the case with regard to [a get given to] the woman herself.4
Halacha 3
A husband may not appoint an agent to receive a get for his wife.5 He may, however, appoint an agent to deliver a get to his wife. Such an agent is referred to as a delivery agent (sh'liach holachah).
Halacha 4
Similarly, a woman may appoint an agent to fetch her get for her from her husband. Such an agent is referred to as an agent who fetches (sh'liach hava'ah). Neither a sh'liach holachah nor a sh'liach hava'ah need [be appointed in the presence of] witnesses.6
Halacha 5
A woman is not divorced through the medium of a get sent by her husband or brought by a sh'liach hava'ah [whom she appointed] until the get reaches her hand.
Whenever the term agent is used with regard to a get without any further explanation, the intent is a sh'liach holachah or a sh'liach hava'ah.
Halacha 6
Anyone is acceptable to act as an agent with regard to a divorce, whether as a sh'liach kabbalah, a sh'liach holachah or a sh'liach hava'ah,7 with the exception of five individuals: a gentile, a servant, a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual and a minor.8 If one of these individuals brings or receives [a get], the divorce is not effective.
Halacha 7
Even women, relatives9 and individuals who are disqualified [from serving as witnesses] because of the violation of Rabbinic law are acceptable to serve as agents for a divorce.10 Individuals who are disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, by contrast, are not acceptable [to serve as agents] to deliver a get. If they bring it, the divorce is unacceptable.
When does the above11 apply? When the signatures on the get have been verified.12 If, however, we must rely only on the words of an individual who is disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, the divorce is void entirely.13
Halacha 8
If the agent was a minor when he was given the get, and he attained majority when he brought it [to the woman], [or he was a] deaf mute and gained the ability to hear and speak, [or he was] mentally incompetent and gained competence, [or he was] a gentile and converted, or a servant and was freed, the divorce is void.14
If, however, the husband gives [an agent] a get while [the agent] is able to hear and speak, [or the agent then] becomes a deaf mute and afterwards regains his ability to hear and speak, or [the agent] was mentally competent, he lost his competence and then regained it when he brought it to the woman, the get is acceptable, for at the outset and at the conclusion, [the agent] was of sound mind.15
Halacha 9
When a woman appoints an agent in the presence of witnesses and tells him: "Take my get and keep it for me in your possession," the person is a sh'liach kabbalah. It is as if she told him: "Receive my get for me."
A woman may appoint a sh'liach kabbalah to receive her get for her from an agent appointed by her husband.16
A girl below the age of majority may not appoint a sh'liach kabbalah. Although she may acquire property by virtue of her courtyard in the same manner as an adult woman17 [she does not have the privilege of appointing an agent]. The rationale is that [the appointment of] a sh'liach kabbalah requires witnesses, and witnesses may not testify with regard to a minor, because she is not of complete mental competence.18
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply] when a woman has appointed a sh'liach kabbalah and her husband told him: "I do not want you to receive the get for her. Instead, here is her get. Bring it to her." The husband has this prerogative, and the person becomes a sh'liach holachah, rather than a sh'liach kabbalah.19
If, however, the husband tells [the woman's agent]: "Receive the get for her," "Here it is," or "Acquire it for her," he has not revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged]. But if [the husband] tells [the agent]: "Bring it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged] and has made him the agent of the husband.20 Similarly, if the husband said: "Bring it and give it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged].21
Halacha 11
[In the following situation, although the get reaches the woman's hand, the divorce is not effective because of the confusion in the delegation of agency.] An agent appointed by a woman came to receive her get from her husband. The agent told the husband: "I am a sh'liach kabbalah."
The husband responded: "Bring the get [in the capacity] in which she appointed you"22 - i.e., he did not revoke his agency. Instead, it is as if he had said: "Whether she appointed you to be a sh'liach kabbalah or a sh'liach hava'ah, you remain in that capacity."
The agent brought [the woman] the get, but she told him: "I did not appoint you to be a sh'liach kabbalah, but rather to be a sh'liach hava'ah." Even if the agent gives her the get, the divorce is not effective, for in speaking to the husband, the agent revoked the agency that he was granted. It is as if he had told him: "I was never appointed a sh'liach hava'ah on her behalf."
Halacha 12
[A different ruling applies in the following instance.] The agent told the husband, "I am a sh'liach hava'ah," and the husband told him, "Bring [the get in the capacity] in which she appointed you."
The agent brought [the woman] the get, but she told him: "I appointed you to be a sh'liach kabbalah." When the get is delivered to the woman, the divorce is effective, for he did not revoke the agency that he was granted. He merely reduced [her dependence on him]. For she appointed him [as an agent] to receive [the get], and he said: "I will merely bring it."23
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a husband sends a get to his wife, and when the agent attempts to give it to her, she refuses to take it and tells him in the presence of witnesses, "Hold the get in safekeeping,"24 or "You are an agent to receive it for me." Until the get is given to the woman, the status of the divorce is in doubt.25 Once it reaches her possession, the divorce is definitely binding.
Halacha 14
When an agent brings a get, he must give it to the woman in the presence of two [witnesses].26 These two [witnesses] must read [the get] and then have it given in their presence.27 For the laws applying to the exchange between the agent and the woman are the same as those applying to her exchange with her husband, for the agent is taking his place.
Accordingly, if the agent gave [the get] to her without having it read by the witnesses who observed its transfer, and the woman took it and threw it into a fire, the status of the divorce is in doubt.28
Halacha 15
When an agent transgresses and gives [a woman her] get in private, he should take it back from her and give it to her in the presence of two [witnesses].29 If he dies [and thus this is no longer possible], and the signatures of the witnesses on the get that the woman possesses have been verified, the divorce is acceptable.
Halacha 16
Even when a get is delivered to the woman [for whom it is intended], it can be nullified [in the following instances]: The agent took the get, but the husband changed his mind before it reached the woman and told him or her: "The get that I sent you is void," he sent another agent to nullify [the get], or he told others, "The get that I sent to my wife is void."30
When [a husband] nullifies the get in the presence of other people,31 there must be at least two people present.32 If the get has already been delivered to the woman or to a sh'liach kabbalah, the husband can no longer nullify it.33 [This applies] even if he nullifies the get within a very brief time34 [after appointing the agent];35 since [the get] was nullified after being delivered to the woman, to [her] sh'liach kabbalah or to her courtyard, it is not void, and the divorce is effective.
Halacha 17
Although [a husband] was seeking to appoint an agent to nullify [a get], or he was seeking two individuals so that he could nullify [the get] in their presence, and during the time he was searching for these individuals the get reached the woman's hand, and afterwards he nullified it, it is not void.36 Despite the fact that he was trying to nullify it before it reached her hand [the divorce is effective].
Halacha 18
If [the husband] told ten men: "Write a get and give it to my wife,"37 he may nullify [the get] in the presence of one of the ten, although the others are not present. And he may nullify it in the presence of two other people [who were not involved originally].
If he sent the get via two [agents], he may negate one of the agents although the other is not present. Even when there are ten agents, when he negates [the agency] in the presence of one of them, the get is void.38
Halacha 19
Similarly, when a person tells two [witnesses],39 "The get that I [am intending to] write for my wife is nullified," although he has a get written afterwards and gives it to her in the presence of two other [witnesses], the divorce is void. This is referred to as lodging an objection with regard to a get.40
Similarly, if [the husband] were to tell two [witnesses]: "Any get that so and so will write for me is nullified," "Any get that I will have written in the court of so and so is nullified," or "Any get that I will have written in the next twenty years is nullified," the get is nullified.
Similarly, if he told two [witnesses]: "Any get that I write for so and so, my wife, is nullified. And any statements that I make to nullify this objection are nullified," the get is void, although he had it written and given to her, despite the fact that he nullified his objection before having the get written.
Halacha 20
How can the latter situation be corrected?41 The witnesses should tell [the husband] before the composition of the get: "Affirm in our presence that any statements that you have made that when verified would cause [this] get to be nullified, are themselves nullified."42 [The husband] must answer "Yes."
Afterwards, he should instruct them to write the get, sign it and give it to his wife. We do not let [the husband] leave until the get is delivered [to his wife], lest he go out and nullify [the get].43
Neither a person who lodges an objection [to a get], nor one who seeks to nullify such an objection needs [to have his statements affirmed by] an act of contract.
Halacha 21
When a person has sent a get via an agent and [later] nullifies [the giving of] the get, he may divorce the woman with [this get] whenever he desires. He did not nullify the get as a get; he merely nullified the agency.
Therefore, if the get was in the possession of the husband and he nullified it - e.g., he said: "This get is nullified" - he may never use it for a divorce. It is like a broken shard, and if it is used for a divorce, the divorce is not effective.44
Similarly, if the get was entrusted to the agent, but the husband made an explicit statement, saying: "The get that I sent is nullified [and may not] serve as a get," he may never use it to effect a divorce.
Halacha 22
Which wording can be used to nullify a get? [The husband] says: "It is nullified," "I cannot abide by it," "May this get not be effective," "[May it] not permit [her]," "[May it] not release [her], "[May it] not send [her] forth," "[May it] not divorce [her]," "May it be a shard," "May it be like a shard," or "Behold it is like a shard" - If he used any of these expressions or a similar one, he has negated it.45
Halacha 23
If, however, [the husband] says: "This get is not a get," "It is unacceptable," "It is not effective," "It does not permit [her]," "It does not release [her], "It does not send [her] forth," "It does not divorce [her]," "It is a shard," his statements are not effective. This wording does not [indicate his desire to] nullify [the get]. Instead, they are statements of fact, and in this instance, statements of incorrect fact.46 It is as if someone said that a forbidden entity were permitted or that an impure object were pure.
Halacha 24
If he says, "This get is nullified," [it is possible that] the implication is the use of the past tense, as in the phrase [Song of Songs 5:6]: "He turned away and was gone." Thus, there is a question concerning the matter.47 Therefore, if [a woman] has been divorced with this get [after such statements were made], the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Halacha 25
[As reflected in the following instance, an explicit statement must be made to nullify the get: A man] sent a get to his wife [via an agent]. The agent returned to him and said: "I could not find her," or "She did not want to receive it." Although the husband answered: "Blessed be He who is good and does good," or made other statements that imply that he no longer wants to divorce her, and that he is happy that the get was not delivered, the get is not nullified. Instead, he may give it to her and the divorce will be effective. [For the get to be nullified,] he must explicitly say "Do not give it to her," or he should explicitly nullify it [using one of the above expressions].
Halacha 26
A person who sent a get to his wife [via an agent] and then nullified [the get] in the presence of two other people,48 and similarly, a person who issued an objection [nullifying] a get, should be given stripes for rebelliousness, because he makes it possible for illegitimate children to be conceived.
Since a get reached [the woman], [it is possible that] she will marry on this basis. [Only] afterwards, when the witnesses in whose presence the husband nullified the get or issued an objection before the get was written appear [will she realize the difficulty]. Thus, a child [conceived in her second marriage] will be illegitimate.
Halacha 27
When an agent brings a get and gives it to a woman, we do not suspect that the husband nullified it. Instead, he should give it to the woman under the presumption that it is acceptable, and the woman may marry on this basis. If it is discovered afterwards that [the husband] negated it, [the woman] must leave [her second husband], and any children conceived are illegitimate.
Similarly, when [a husband] has a get written and gives it to his wife, we do not suspect that perhaps he lodged an objection regarding this get. Instead, we operate under the conception that the get is acceptable, and the woman is allowed to marry on this basis.
Halacha 28
Similarly, when an agent brings a get [that was sent by] a man who was sick or elderly, he may give it to the woman under the presumption that the husband is still alive. If, however, the husband was in his death throes when [the agent left], even when he gives the get to the woman the status of the divorce is in doubt. For the majority of those in their death throes will die, and a get given after death is not effective.49
Similarly, when a city is surrounded by an army50 and held under siege, a ship is in distress at sea,51 or a person is taken out to be judged [with regard to a capital case],52 we presume that any person in such a situation is alive. If a person in such a situation has sent a get [to his wife] via an agent, he may give it to her, and the presumption will be that the divorce is effective.
Halacha 29
When, by contrast, a city has been conquered by an attacking army and [its wall] broken, a ship is lost at sea,53 a person is being taken out to be executed by a gentile court,54 or he is being dragged by a beast of prey, swept away by a river or an avalanche has fallen upon him, the stringencies applying to both the living and the dead, are followed.
If [a person in one of these situations gave] a get to an agent, the agent should not give it to the husband's wife.55 If, however, he gives it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.56 If it is known that the husband died before the get reached his wife, the divorce is void.
Halacha 30
When a husband sends his wife a get, he is obligated to provide her with support and fulfill the other stipulations of the marriage contract, until the get reaches [his wife] or a sh'liach kabbalah she has appointed.57
FOOTNOTES
1.And from that time onward, the husband cannot recant.
2.That is, when does the requirement for witnesses apply?
3.See Chapter 1, Halachah 16.
4.See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.
5.A divorce is considered to be undesirable and detrimental for a woman. Therefore, an agent cannot be appointed for her without her consent. For an activity that is detrimental to a person cannot be performed on his or her behalf without his will (Gittin 62b).
6.See Hilchot Ishut 3:15, where the Rambam states: "For the only purpose witnesses would serve with regard to the agency... is to make known the truth of the matter."
According to the Rambam, the distinction between these agents and a sh'liach kabbalah appointed by the woman is that through the acceptance of the get the marriage bonds are annulled, and "no matters involving forbidden sexual relations [are established if] fewer than two witnesses are present (Yevamot 88a)." Since the sh'liach kabbalah is concerned only with receiving the get, his agency involves nothing else but the actual divorce. Hence, witnesses must be present to acknowledge the appointment of this agent. In contrast, the agency of a sh'liach holachah and a sh'liach hava'ah also involves transporting the get, an activity that is merely a preparatory step for the divorce. Hence, witnesses are not required for his appointment.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and others offer a far more straightforward rationale clarifying the distinction between these agents. A sh'liach holachah and a sh'liach hava'ah each carry the get with them. Hence, they need no further proof of their agency. A sh'liach kabbalah, by contrast, does not have possession of the get before the divorce. Hence, his position must be strengthened by having his appointment observed by witnesses.
In practice, it has already become customary for the appointment of a sh'liach holachah to be certified by a written document. There are opinions that differ and require that the appointment of a sh'liach holachah also be observed by witnesses. (See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 141:11, 30, 40.)
7.The Rambam's statements are intended to negate the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosef Migash, who maintains that a servant may serve as a sh'liach holachah. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:31) quotes both views, but appears to favor the Rambam's view.
8.See Chapter 3, Halachah 15, and Hilchot Ishut 3:17.
9.The Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:33) states that a priori, it is proper that the agent not share any family ties with the husband, his wife, or the judges executing the divorce.
10.It would appear that even if the signatures of the witnesses have not been verified, and the acceptability of a get depends on the agents' statements, these individuals may serve as agents.
11.That the divorce is unacceptable, but not void.
12.As can be seen in the various manuscript copies of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 2:6), the Rambam changed his opinion regarding the acceptance of these individuals as agents when the veracity of the signature on a get has been established. The standard text of the Commentary on the Mishnah states that if the witnesses' signatures have been verified, the get is acceptable unless the person worships false gods or violates the Sabbath in public. This is also the view of other authorities and is the ruling favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:33).
13.See also Chapter 12, Halachah 17. Based on the objections of the Ra'avad, the Kessef Mishneh modifies the Rambam's ruling slightly, explaining that the intent is that the woman may not remarry, and not that the get is void. If, however, she does remarry, her second husband is also required to divorce her.
The get she received from her first husband is not void, because it is possible that witnesses will come and verify the signatures on the get. In such an event, the divorce will be effective retroactively. Nevertheless, since those signatures have not been verified as of yet, her second husband must divorce her.
Rav David Arameah explains that the Rambam's intent is that the get is still viable, but it should be given to another agent to effect the divorce. Note the Maggid Mishneh and others, who question the source for the Rambam's ruling.
14.In all these instances, since the agent was not fit to serve in that capacity at the time the agency was delegated to him, it is as if the agency had never been conveyed upon him.
15.The fact that, in the interim, he was unfit to serve as an agent is of no significance. Note the Or Sameach, who on this basis questions what the law would be if the husband negates the agency and then desires to reestablish it. Must he reappoint the agent or not?
16.Gittin 63b states that our Sages entertained a hypothesis that this involves a disregard for the honor of the husband, and therefore the divorce should be void, but they did not accept this theory.
17.And thus, if a get were placed in her courtyard, the divorce would be acceptable. Moreover, the effectiveness of a courtyard in the acceptance of a get is associated with the concept of agency. (See Bava Metzia 10b and the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on Chapter 5, Halachah 2.)
18.The Ra'avad disagrees with the Rambam and maintains that the rationale is that a minor is never empowered to appoint an agent. And thus, a woman below majority may not appoint a sh'liach hava'ah either. It must be noted that in Hilchot Sh'luchin V'Shutafin 2:2, the Rambam indeed states that in no instance may a minor appoint an agent. See the Lechem Mishneh and Rav Kapach, who emphasize that a special law applies with regard to an agent to receive a get, for he is considered to be the extension of the woman's hand. Note the Rambam's wording in Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
19.Hence, the divorce does not become final when the agent receives the get. It is only when the get reaches the woman's hand that the divorce takes effect.
20.I.e., the husband's statements imply that he is unwilling to give the agent the get in his original capacity, but that he is willing to charge him with a different agency - bringing the woman the get as agent of the husband.
This ruling is not accepted by all authorities. The Rashba and Rabbenu Nissim differ, maintaining that in such an instance, the status of the divorce is in doubt. The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:6), while the other views are cited by the Ramah.
21.Although with regard to the transfer of a present the Rambam maintains that the expression "Give it to him" is equivalent to saying "Acquire it on his behalf" (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:4), because the husband said "Bring it to her" it is clear that he desired the agent to serve in the capacity of a sh'liach holachah.
22.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:8) explains that the phrase "in the capacity in which she appointed you" is of primary significance here. If the husband does not add that phrase and says merely: "Bring the get to her," he is appointing the agent to be a sh'liach holachah, and by taking the get the agent is accepting this appointment. Therefore, if the agent delivers the get to the woman, the divorce is effective.
23.By serving as a sh'liach hava'ah, the agent accepts far more responsibility and difficulty than by serving as a sh'liach kabbalah. If he served as a sh'liach kabbalah, the divorce would be completed after he received the get. As a sh'liach hava'ah, the agent must trouble himself to bring the get to the woman. As such, we assume that since the woman was willing to accept the agent as a sh'liach kabbalah, she is certainly willing to accept him as a sh'liach hava'ah.
Note the Lechem Mishneh and Rabbenu Nissim, who explain that it is possible that the husband relied on the words of the agent, or it is possible that he was concerned with the words of his wife. Indeed, with regard to questions of commercial law, there is an unresolved question in Bava Metzia 76a regarding this matter. Following this rationale, even if the get never reached the woman, as long as it reached the agent the status of the divorce is in doubt. This ruling is also cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:9).
24.With this expression, the woman's intent is that the agent should begin acting as her agent and hold the get for her. For keeping the get as an entrusted article violates the instructions that her husband gave him (Rabbenu Nissim).
25.The doubt is whether an agent can begin acting in the capacity of the woman's agent before he has completed executing the agency with which he was charged by the husband (Gittin 63b).
26.See Chapter 1, Halachah 16.
27.See Chapter 1, Halachah 19.
28.See Chapter 1, Halachah 21.
29.The Rambam rules that after the fact, a get given in private is acceptable. There are, however, geonim who hold that such a get is unacceptable (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). Since the status of an agent is weaker than that of the husband himself, a second transfer of the get is required in this instance a priori (Maggid Mishneh).
30.See Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:59) rules that at the outset, a husband should not nullify a get unless either the agent he appointed or his wife is present. Otherwise, it is possible that the woman may receive the get - and marry another man - before receiving notice that her get was nullified.
31.I.e., people other than the agent. If he nullifies the get in the presence of the agent, no one else need be present.
32.Note the Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:59), who cites an opinion that allows the husband to nullify the get by speaking to two people, one outside the presence of the other.
33.For the divorce has already taken effect.
34.In this context, the words "a very brief time" are a loose translation. The Hebrew term toch k'dei dibbur has a very specific meaning: the amount of time necessary to say "Shalom alecha, rabbi umori."
35.The rationale is that divorcing a wife is a very serious matter, and a man would not make such a decision unless he were resolute. Therefore, his change of mind is not considered to be a clarification of his original position (as in certain other instances - e.g., a retraction of a business commitment), but rather an entirely new decision. (Note the parallels to Hilchot Ishut 7:22, Hilchot Avodah Zarah 2:9 and Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17.)
36.The fundamental principle involved is that Torah law depends on a person's acts and statements, not his feelings. Although it is obvious that the husband desired to nullify the get, since he was not able to take binding action the divorce is valid. (See also Halachah 25.)
37.See Chapter 9, Halachah 27.
38.The Ra'avad differs with Rambam and maintains that although a person may nullify the agency of one of the two (or ten), doing so does not nullify the agency of the other(s), and if they give the woman the get, the divorce is effective. Although the Rambam's opinion is also mentioned, it is that of the Ra'avad that is favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 149:61).
39.The Ramah (Even HaEzer 134:1) states that even when the husband makes statements to two witnesses individually, the objection is binding.
40.In Hilchot Mechirah, Chapter 6, the Rambam explains the details of lodging an objection with regard to a sale. There he explains that when a person is compelled to make a sale against his will, he can nullify the transaction by issuing an objection stating that he was compelled to make this sale. With regard to an objection to a get, other authorities (see Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Chapter 134) also mention the concept of compulsion. The Rambam, however, omits mention of the subject entirely.
As reflected in Halachah 27, our Sages considered lodging an objection to a get in a very negative light.
41.The situation mentioned by the Rambam in the previous halachah is not merely a theoretical question. In many instances, a husband who was compelled to divorce his wife would seek to have the get nullified so that their marriage could continue. Similarly, apostates and men whose feelings toward their wives have soured have sought to nullify their divorces in order to cause their wives difficulties.
42.Many of the other commentaries differ with the Rambam concerning this point. Some - e.g., the Rashba - are more stringent, for they maintain that the husband can word his objection to nullify even such a statement. They explain that to insure that the get is not nullified, the husband must also disqualify the testimony of any witness who heard his objections.
Others - e.g., Rabbenu Asher - are more lenient and maintain that all that is necessary is for the husband to say that all objections to the get are nullified. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 134:3) rules according to the Rashba. The Ramah maintains that Rabbenu Asher's ruling is halachically acceptable; however, he counsels following the Rashba's ruling to eliminate all doubts.
43.Despite the statements that he had made previously, if the husband nullified the get afterwards, his statements would be effective and the divorce void (Maggid Mishneh).
44.There are authorities who differ with the Rambam on this point, based on their version of Gittin 32b. According to these authorities, since the get was written according to law, it is always able to be used for a divorce and can never be nullified by the husband. In consideration of the opinion of these authorities, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:66), when quoting this law, rules that the status of the divorce is in doubt.
45.The point is that these expressions all indicate that the husband no longer desires to use this get to divorce his wife.
46.For all the statements quoted above are false. The get is effective; it is the husband who no longer desires to use it.
47.The Rambam implies that the question is whether the word לטב implies a future tense - i.e., that his intent is to nullify the get - in which instance the divorce would not be effective. Or whether it implies the past tense, in which case, as in the previous halachah, the husband would be giving us incorrect information.
Rashi offers a slightly different interpretation of the passage in Gittin 32b that serves as the source for this halachah. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:63) quotes both opinions.
48.If, however, the man nullifies the get in the presence of the agent or in the presence of his wife, there is no difficulty.
49.The primary reason for giving such a get - for the marriage is terminated with the husband's death regardless - is to free a childless woman from the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. If the get was given before the husband's death, these rites are not necessary. Otherwise, they are. With the current advances in record keeping and communication, it is usually possible to eliminate the doubt mentioned in this halachah.
50.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:69) states that this law applies only when a city is surrounded by the army of the ruling authority. If it is surrounded by an army from another country, we no longer operate under the presumption that the husband is alive.
51.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 3:4), the Rambam defines a ship in distress as follows: "One that faces a tempest-torn sea that threatens to sink it. The sailors are unable to control its path as they desire.... Nevertheless, all the oars and the other instruments remain intact."
52.This applies regardless of whether the person is being tried by a Jewish court or a gentile court.
53.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam defines this as referring to a ship whose oars, steering mechanism and other navigational tools have been broken, and it is totally at the mercy of the waters.
The laws that apply when a ship has sunk are described in Chapter 13, Halachah 16.
54.The implication is that if the person was sentenced to death by a Jewish court, we presume that the sentence was carried out. (See Hilchot Terumot 9:2.) In contrast, there is a possibility that a gentile court will accept a bribe.
55.Lest the husband have died already.
56.For we do not know which came first, the husband's death or the giving of the get.
57.Although the husband desires to divorce her, she remains his wife until the get reaches her. Therefore, the husband remains obligated by the marriage contract.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• "Today's Day"
Shabbat, Adar II 27, 5774 • 29 March 2014
Shabbat, Adar Sheini 27, Parshat Hachodesh 5703
Bless Rosh Chodesh Nissan; say the entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Haftora: Ko amar...olat tamid.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mini, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: Ch. 30. It is (p. 187)...the commandment itself." (p. 191).
From my father's sichot: The sin of Aharon's sons* was "...when they drew close before G-d and died." This was ratzo without shov, return.1 The truth is that when coming "before G-d"2 there must be tit'haru, one must be clean and pure, and (the closeness) must be evident in actual deeds. That which is on the very highest planes descends to the very lowest depths;3 hence ratzo without shov is death.
Continuing, G-d commands Moshe (Vayikra 16:2) to speak to Aharon. The letters in the name Aharon are those in the word nir'eh, "visible," which in terms of the powers of the soul4 refers to intellect.
Moshe is to tell Aharon that in order to enter the sacred (area), even "within the curtain" - meaning the state prior to tzimtzum5 - he must know that...
...upon the ark (ha'aron - the letters of this word spelling nir'eh, "visible" - i.e. intellect) there is a kaporet, a covering, an inner intent and purpose of a concealment, expressed in the words, "the face of (or "the inner aspect of") the kaporet."
For this reason one "should not die," i.e. he should not stop with ratzo, the entering alone - for "...in a cloud will I appear on the kaporet;"6 the inner intent and purpose of the First tzimtzum is revelation.
The introductory word to all this is v'al, "he shall not (enter)." This expression of negation7 indicates total nullification of self, bitul, doing what Chassidus demands, not what his intelligence dictates. Then "he shall enter the sacred (area)."
FOOTNOTES
*. See Supplementary Footnotes, p. 126.
1. See Supplementary Footnotes, p. 126.
2. In verse 30 the additional word tit'haru is found, "will you be cleansed," after the words "before G-d."
3. See Supplementary Footnotes p. 127.
4. See Translator's Introductory Notes. When soul manifests itself, the first power that is evident, ("visible") after the powers in their latent state, is intellect.
5. "Contraction" and concealment of G-d, the process by which G-d's infinitude is concealed, making possible the existence of a finite Creation.
6. Paradoxically, it is only through G-d's concealment ("...in a cloud...") that He is accessible ("..will I appear..."). Man's approaching G-d is insufficient; through "withdrawal," returning to the material world and living there by Torah and mitzvot, he can attain G-d. "First tzimtzum" is a paraphrase for "cloud."
7. Man's natural preference is what he feels is satisfying. Rejecting what he "knows" to be desirable and fulfilling - in favor of what Chassidus explains as the wish of G-d, is an act of self-negation. This prepares him to enter the Holy of Holies.
-------
Daily Thought:
Anesthetized
G‑d saw the fire and the ice, the storm and the narrow straits that plague our final journey, and He knew that no soul could bear such pain.
So He anesthetized our souls. Our love and fear, our sensitivity to anything G‑dly—all that was put to sleep. Only the very core, our essential connection to Above, was left intact.
There is a positive side to this frozen state: The deepest wonders are open to us. Wonders that souls of an earlier generation would never have been able to approach out of awe and inspiration.
At the core of the wisdom of Torah lies an unbearable fire. We can walk through it now, without even knowing its heat.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment