Daily Quote:
The people of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the miracles he performed. So why did they believe in him? Because when we stood at Sinai, our own eyes saw and our own ears heard the fire, the sounds and the flames, and how Moses approached the cloud and G-d's voice called to him...[Maimonides]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Eikev, 2nd Portion Deuteronomy 8:11-9:3 with Rashi
• Chapter 8
11Beware that you do not forget the Lord, your God, by not keeping His commandments, His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command you this day, יאהִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹר מִצְוֹתָיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם:
12lest you eat and be sated, and build good houses and dwell therein, יבפֶּן תֹּאכַל וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבָתִּים טֹבִים תִּבְנֶה וְיָשָׁבְתָּ:
13and your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold increase, and all that you have increases, יגוּבְקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ יִרְבְּיֻן וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב יִרְבֶּה לָּךְ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְךָ יִרְבֶּה:
14and your heart grows haughty, and you forget the Lord, your God, Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, ידוְרָם לְבָבֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:
15Who led you through that great and awesome desert, [in which were] snakes, vipers and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought water for you out of solid rock, טוהַמּוֹלִיכְךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר | הַגָּדֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא נָחָשׁ | שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב וְצִמָּאוֹן אֲשֶׁר אֵין מָיִם הַמּוֹצִיא לְךָ מַיִם מִצּוּר הַחַלָּמִישׁ:
16Who fed you with manna in the desert, which your forefathers did not know, in order to afflict you and in order to test you, to benefit you in your end, טזהַמַּאֲכִלְךָ מָן בַּמִּדְבָּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְמַעַן עַנֹּתְךָ וּלְמַעַן נַסֹּתֶךָ לְהֵיטִבְךָ בְּאַחֲרִיתֶךָ:
17and you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me." יזוְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה:
18But you must remember the Lord your God, for it is He that gives you strength to make wealth, in order to establish His covenant which He swore to your forefathers, as it is this day. יחוְזָכַרְתָּ אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי הוּא הַנֹּתֵן לְךָ כֹּחַ לַעֲשׂוֹת חָיִל לְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת בְּרִיתוֹ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה:
19And it will be, if you forget the Lord your God and follow other gods, and worship them, and prostrate yourself before them, I bear witness against you this day, that you will surely perish. יטוְהָיָה אִם שָׁכֹחַ תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַעֲבַדְתָּם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לָהֶם הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן:
20As the nations that the Lord destroys before you, so will you perish; since you will not obey the Lord your God. ככַּגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה מַאֲבִיד מִפְּנֵיכֶם כֵּן תֹּאבֵדוּן עֵקֶב לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּן בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
Chapter 9
1Hear, O Israel: Today, you are crossing the Jordan to come in to possess nations greater and stronger than you, great cities, fortified up to the heavens. אשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה עֹבֵר הַיּוֹם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן לָבֹא לָרֶשֶׁת גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִמֶּךָּ עָרִים גְּדֹלֹת וּבְצֻרֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם:
greater and mightier than you: You are mighty, but they are mightier than you. — [Sifrei on Deut.11:24] גדולים ועצומים ממך: אתה עצום, והם עצומים ממך:
2A great and tall people, the children of the 'Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard said, "Who can stand against the children of 'Anak?!" בעַם גָּדוֹל וָרָם בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ וְאַתָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ מִי יִתְיַצֵּב לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי עֲנָק:
3You shall know this day, that it is the Lord your God Who passes over before you as a consuming fire He will destroy them, and He will subdue them before you; and you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the Lord spoke to you. גוְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם כִּי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא הָעֹבֵר לְפָנֶיךָ אֵשׁ אֹכְלָה הוּא יַשְׁמִידֵם וְהוּא יַכְנִיעֵם לְפָנֶיךָ וְהוֹרַשְׁתָּם וְהַאֲבַדְתָּם מַהֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה לָךְDaily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 88 - 89
• Chapter 88
The psalmist weeps and laments bitterly over the maladies and suffering Israel endures in exile, which he describes in detail.
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach, for the Conductor, upon the machalat le'anot; 1 a maskil2 for Heiman the Ezrachite.
2. O Lord, God of my deliverance, by day I cried out [to You], by night I [offer my prayer] before You.
3. Let my prayer come before You; turn Your ear to my supplication.
4. For my soul is sated with affliction, and my life has reached the grave.
5. I was reckoned with those who go down to the pit, I was like a man without strength.
6. [I am regarded] among the dead who are free, like corpses lying in the grave, of whom You are not yet mindful, who are yet cut off by Your hand.
7. You have put me into the lowest pit, into the darkest places, into the depths.
8. Your wrath has weighed heavily upon me, and all the waves [of Your fury] have constantly afflicted me.
9. You have estranged my friends from me, You have made me abhorrent to them; I am imprisoned and unable to leave.
10. My eye is afflicted because of distress; I call to You, O Lord, every day; I have stretched out my hands [in prayer] to You.
11. Do You perform wonders for the deceased? Do the dead stand to offer You praise? Selah.
12. Is Your kindness recounted in the grave, your faithfulness in the place of perdition?
13. Are Your wondrous deeds known in the darkness [of the grave], or Your righteousness in the land of oblivion?
14. But, I, to You, O Lord, I cry; each morning my prayer comes before You.
15. Why, O Lord, do You forsake my soul? Why do You conceal Your countenance from Me?
16. From my youth I have been afflicted and approaching death, yet I have borne the fear of You which is firmly established within me.
17. Your furies have passed over me; Your terrors have cut me down.
18. They have engulfed me like water all day long, they all together surrounded me.
19. You have estranged from me beloved and friend; I have been rejected by my intimates.
Chapter 89
This psalm speaks of the kingship of the House of David, the psalmist lamenting its fall from power for many years, and God's abandonment and spurning of us.
1. A maskil1 by Eitan the Ezrachite.
2. I will sing of the Lord's kindness forever; to all generations I will make known Your faithfulness with my mouth.
3. For I have said, "The world is built with kindness; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”
4. I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to David, My servant:
5. "I will establish Your descendants forever; I will build your throne for all generations," Selah.
6. Then the heavens will extol Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness, too, in the congregation of the holy ones.
7. Indeed, who in heaven can be compared to the Lord, who among the supernal beings can be likened to the Lord!
8. The Almighty is revered in the great assembly of the holy ones, awe-inspiring to all who surround Him.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, who is mighty like You, O God! Your faithfulness surrounds You.
10. You rule the vastness of the sea; when its waves surge, You still them.
11. You crushed Rahav (Egypt) like a corpse; with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
12. Yours are the heavens, the earth is also Yours; the world and all therein-You established them.
13. The north and the south-You created them; Tabor and Hermon sing of [the greatness] of Your Name.
14. Yours is the arm which has the might; strengthen Your hand, raise high Your right hand.
15. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; kindness and truth go before Your countenance.
16. Fortunate is the people who know the sound of the shofar; Lord, they walk in the light of Your countenance.
17. They rejoice in Your Name all day, and they are exalted through Your righteousness.
18. Indeed, You are the splendor of their might, and in Your goodwill our glory is exalted.
19. For our protectors turn to the Lord, and our king to the Holy One of Israel.
20. Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones and said: "I have granted aid to [David] the mighty one; I have exalted the one chosen from among the people.
21. I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil.
22. It is he whom My hand shall be prepared [to assist]; My arm, too, shall strengthen him.
23. The enemy shall not prevail over him, nor shall the iniquitous person afflict him.
24. And I will crush his adversaries before him, and will strike down those who hate him.
25. Indeed, My faithfulness and My kindness shall be with him, and through My Name his glory shall be exalted.
26. I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27. He will call out to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, the strength of my deliverance.’
28. I will also make him [My] firstborn, supreme over the kings of the earth.
29. I will maintain My kindness for him forever; My covenant shall remain true to him.
30. And I will bestow [kingship] upon his seed forever, and his throne will endure as long as the heavens last.
31. If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My ordinances;
32. if they profane My statutes and do not observe My commandments,
33. then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their misdeeds with plagues.
34. Yet I shall not take away My kindness from him, nor betray My faithfulness.
35. I will not abrogate My covenant, nor change that which has issued from My lips.
36. One thing I have sworn by My holiness-I will not cause disappointment to David.
37. His seed will endure forever and his throne will be [resplendent] as the sun before Me.
38. Like the moon, it shall be established forever; [the moon] is a faithful witness in the sky for all time.”
39. Yet You have forsaken and abhorred; You became enraged at Your anointed.
40. You annulled the covenant with Your servant; You have profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground.
41. You shattered all his fences; You turned all his strongholds into ruin.
42. All wayfarers despoiled him; he has become a disgrace to his neighbors.
43. You have uplifted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice.
44. You also turned back the blade of his sword, and did not sustain him in battle.
45. You put an end to his splendor, and toppled his throne to the ground.
46. You have cut short the days of his youth; You have enclothed him with long-lasting shame.
47. How long, O Lord, will You conceal Yourself-forever? [How long] will Your fury blaze like fire?
48. O remember how short is my life span! Why have You created all children of man for naught?
49. What man can live and not see death, can save his soul forever from the grave?
50. Where are Your former deeds of kindness, my Lord, which You swore to David in Your faithfulness?
51. Remember, my Lord, the disgrace of Your servants, that I bear in my bosom from all the many nations;
52. that Your enemies have disgraced, O Lord, that they have disgraced the footsteps of Your anointed.
53. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.
Tanya: Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 5• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Menachem Av 18, 5775 · August 3, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Iggeret HaKodesh, end of Epistle 5
ובזה יובן מה שכתב האריז״ל, שיש ב׳ מיני נשמות בישראל
The above enables one to understand the statement of Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory, that there are two kinds of souls among Jews:
נשמות תלמידי חכמים, העוסקים בתורה כל ימיהם
the souls of Torah scholars, who engage in the study of Torah all their lives,1
ונשמות בעלי מצות, העוסקים בצדקה וגמילות חסדים
and the souls of those who perform the commandments, occupying themselves with charitable and kindly deeds.
דלכאורה, הרי גם תלמידי חכמים צריכים לעסוק בגמילות חסדים
Now surely scholars, too, need to occupy themselves with acts of kindness;
כמאמר רז״ל, שאפילו תורה אין לו
as our Sages, of blessed memory, taught, “[Whoever says that he has nothing but Torah,” and thus no kindly deeds], “does not have even Torah.”
How, then, could the AriZal have stated that people with a certain kind of soul invest their lives exclusively in Torah study? The Alter Rebbe’s answer, which follows, takes it for granted that even fulltime Torah scholars of course spend some of their time in doing good deeds.
אלא שהתלמידי חכמים, שתורתן עיקר ורוב ימיהם בה
However, as regards Torah scholars whose study of the Torah is their principal occupation and most of their time is spent in it, with only a minor part of their time spent on the performance of kindly deeds,
הנה פעולת אתערותא דלתתא, לעורר חסד עליון
the effect of their arousal from below, to arouse Supernal Chesed,
להמשיך ולהוריד אור אין סוף המלובש בחכמה עילאה, מקור תורת ה׳ שבפיהם
to call forth and bring downward the [infinite] Ein Sof-light vested in Supernal Chochmah, the source of G‑d’s Torah which is in their mouths,
הוא רק לעולם הנשמות שבבריאה, על ידי עסק התלמוד
extends only to the realm of the souls that are in Beriah, through their occupation with Gemara,
The study of Gemara, inasmuch as it involves reasoning and intellectual give-and-take, corresponds to the World ofBeriah, the realm of comprehension.
ולמלאכים שביצירה על ידי לימוד המשנה
and extends to the angels that are in the World of Yetzirah, through their occupation with Mishnah.
The Mishnah consists of statements of law — “kosher” or “non-kosher”, “pure” or “impure”. Such bipartite divisions, which are a reflection in the material world below of the divergent attributes of Chesed and Gevurah in the realms above, are related to the World of Yetzirah, which is the realm of middot, the spiritual emotions.
יען היות חיות הנשמות והמלאכים נשפעות מצירופי אותיות הדבור, היא תורה שבעל פה
For the animation of souls and angels derives from the combinations of the letters of speech, i.e., the Oral Torah; as it is written in Patach Eliyahu,2 “[The Sefirah of] Malchut [corresponds to] the mouth, which we call the Oral Torah.”
ומקור האותיות הוא מחכמה עילאה, כנזכר לעיל
The source of the letters, however, is in Supernal Chochmah, as mentioned above.
Thus, through their study of the Oral Torah, scholars draw down Supernal Chochmah into the combinations of the letters of speech; this in turn provides vitality to [unborn] souls and angels.
אך להמשיך ולהוריד הארה וחיות מבחינת הבל העליון, ה׳ תתאה, לעולם הזה השפל
However, in order to call forth and bring downward an illumination and vitality from the level of the Supreme Breath, the “lower hei,” to this lowly world,
שהוא צמצום גדול ביתר עז
which entails a greater and extreme contraction,
לא די באתערותא דלתתא של תלמידי חכמים, העוסקים מיעוט ימיהם בצדקה וגמילות חסדים
the arousal from below by the Torah scholars, who for only a small part of their time engage in charitable and kindly deeds, is not sufficient.3
אלא על ידי אתערותא דבעלי מצות, העוסקים רוב ימיהם בצדקה וגמילות חסדים
[This is effected] only through an arousal by those who perform the commandments, who are occupied with deeds of charity and kindness for the major part of their life
(וכמו שכתוב בלקוטי אמרים בחלק א׳, פרק ל״ד)
(4as explained in Likkutei Amarim, Part I, ch. 34).
The Alter Rebbe explains there that even if a man distributes no more than a fifth of his income for charity, that fifth elevates the other four parts with it to G‑d, for thereby all his exertion becomes a dwelling for Him. Moreover, his acts of kindness will arouse G‑d’s “right hand of kindness.”
ולכן נקראו תמכי אורייתא
That is why [people who are mainly occupied with such mitzvot] are called5 “the supporters of [the] Torah [itself],” and not only of those who study the Torah, for by their activities they draw down the light of the Torah from its root and source so that it will illuminate this physical world below.
והן בחינות ומדריגות נצח והוד
These [people] represent the levels of Netzach and Hod, which are analogous to6 “the two thighs” which enable a man to stand upon the ground; the function of the Sefirot of Netzach and Hod is similar,
להיותן ממשיכין אור התורה למטה לעולם העשיה
because they cause the light of Torah to issue downwards to the World of Asiyah.
ובזה יובן למה נקרא הצדקה בשם מעשה
Now it is clear7 why charity is referred to as an “act”,
כמו שכתוב: והיה מעשה הצדקה שלום
as in the verse,8 “And the act of charity will be peace.”
על שם שפעולתה להמשיך אור ה׳ לעולם העשיה
For the effect of charity is to elicit the light of G‑d down to the World of Asiyah.
וזהו דקדוק לשון זוהר הקדוש: מאן דעביד שמא קדישא, דעביד דייקא
And this is the meaning of the subtle phraseology of the holy Zohar: “He who makes the Holy Name,” expressly saying “who makes.”
כי באתערותא דלתתא, בצדקה וחסד תתאה, מעורר חסד עליון
For by an arousal from below, through charity and mortal Chesed, one arouses the Supernal Chesed —
להמשיך אור אין סוף מבחינת חכמה עילאה, יו״ד של שם
to elicit the [infinite] Ein Sof-light from Supernal Chochmah, the yud of the Divine Name,
לה׳ של שם, בחינת הדבור ורוח פיו יתברך
to the hei of the Name, to the “speech” and “breath” of G‑d’s blessed mouth,
כדי להשפיע לעולם העשיה
in order to draw down [Divine light] to the World of Asiyah.
ועל דרך משל, להבדיל הבדלות אין קץ: כמו שאדם אינו מדבר אלא לאחרים
And, analogously speaking, though infinitely incomparable: a human being speaks only to others
(ולא כשהוא בינו לבין עצמו)
(9and not when he is alone),
ואז מצמצם שכלו ומחשבתו בדבורו אליהם
and then when speaking to them he contracts his intellect and thought.
והמשכילים יבינו
The intelligent will understand.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | “All the other souls are included in the second category; hence the term ‘all their lives’ is not mentioned there.” ( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 2. | Tikkunei Zohar, Introduction II. |
| 3. | “Though insufficient, it is indispensable, for the downward flow must be drawn down through the Worlds of Beriah andYetzirah.”( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 4. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 5. | Zohar I, 8a, paraphrasing Mishlei 3:18. See also Zohar III, 53b; Vayikra Rabbah 25:1; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 251:9;et al. |
| 6. | Tikkunei Zohar, loc. cit. |
| 7. | “Though this comment would appear to be less appropriate here than in Epistle 12, its inclusion here may be appreciated in the light of a statement by the Ramaz (Nitzutzei Orot, in Zohar III, loc. cit.).”( — Note of the Rebbe.) |
| 8. | Yeshayahu 32:17, expounded at length in Epistle 12, below. |
| 9. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Monday, Menachem Av 18, 5775 · August 3, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 101
Ritual Impurity of a Metzora
The mitzvah regarding the ritual impurity of the metzora (a person suffering from tzaraat, a skin discoloration described in the Torah). This mitzvah includes all the laws applicable to this impurity: what types [of discolorations render a person] impure, and [what types do not]; which types of this impurity require quarantine, and which do not; the laws associated with the quarantine, i.e., shaving [the hair surrounding a tzaraat lesion in an area of hair]; and all other laws associate with tzaraat and the gradations of its impurity.
Ritual Impurity of a Metzora
Positive Commandment 101
Translated by Berel Bell
The 101st mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the tumah of leprous person. This mitzvah includes all the laws regarding a leper — which cases are tameh and which tahor; when and when not the person is placed in quarantine; when shaving, known as tiglachas hanesek,1 is required along with the quarantine and the other details including how the tumah is conveyed.
FOOTNOTES
1.One shaves the hair surrounding the affected area to determine if it has grown.
Gerushin - Chapter One
Halacha 1
a) That a man must voluntarily initiate the divorce;
b) That he must effect the divorce by means of a written document and through no other means;
c) That this document must communicate that he is divorcing [his wife] and releasing her from his domain;
d) That it should utterly sever the connection between the husband and his wife;
e) That [the get] should be written for the sake [of the woman being divorced];
f) That once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer to the woman;
g) That he should actually transfer [the get] to her;
h) That he should transfer [the get] to her in the presence of witnesses;
i) That he should actually transfer it to her for the sake of divorce;
j) That the husband or his agent should be the one who gives it to her.
The other requirements of a get - e.g., dating it, having it signed by witnesses and the like - are all Rabbinic institutions.
Halacha 2
What are the sources that indicate that these ten requirements stem from Scripture itself? [They are derived from Deuteronomy 24:1, which] states: "And if it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand and send her from his home."
"If... she does not find favor in his eyes" - this indicates that he divorces her only on his own initiative. If a woman is divorced against her husband's will, the divorce is invalid. A woman may, however, be divorced either voluntarily or against her will.5
Halacha 3
"And he will write" - this teaches that a woman can be divorced only by means of a written document.
"For her" - that it should be written for her sake.
"A bill of divorce" - i.e., a deed that severs the relationship between [the husband and his wife], without leaving him any jurisdiction over her. If [the relationship] between them is not entirely severed, the divorce is not effective, as will be explained.6
"He will... place it in her hand" - this teaches that she is not divorced until the bill of divorce is placed in her hand, in the hand of her agent - which is considered to be her hand - or in her domain - which is considered to be her hand - as will be explained.7
"And he will... send her" - [the wording of] the get should indicate that he is sending her away and not that he is sending himself away from her.
Halacha 4
What is implied? If he writes to her: "Behold you are sent away," "Behold you are divorced," "You are [now] independent," "You are now permitted [to marry] any man," or the like, the divorce is effective. The essence [of the text] of a getis the statement: "You are now permitted to [marry] any man."
If, by contrast, he writes to her: "I am no longer your husband," "I am no longer the one who consecrates you," or "I am no longer your man," the divorce is not effective. For "and he will... send her" implies that he should not send himself away from her.
Similarly, if a man writes to his wife: "Behold you are free," the divorce is not effective.8
Halacha 5
The Torah's expression, "And he will... send her from his home," does not mean that the divorce does not become effective until she leaves his home. Instead, the divorce becomes effective when the get reaches [a woman's] hand, even though she still is in her husband's home, as will be explained.9 "And he will... send her" teaches that if he divorces her, but does not send her away from his home, it is as if he divorced her and then remarried [her]. Therefore, she requires another get, as will be explained.10
Halacha 6
What is the source that teaches that once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer? The [sequence of the verbs] "And he will write..., [and] place," indicating that a get is acceptable only when [the only things] lacking are writing and transfer. This excludes an article that must be detached after it has been written.11
Therefore, if a man writes a get on the horn of a cow, he must give [his wife] the cow [for the divorce to be effective]. If he cut off the horn after he wrote [the get] on it, it is not effective. Similarly, if he wrote [a get] on a plant that was still attached to its source of nurture, the divorce is not effective.12 [This applies] even if the witnesses signed after it was detached.
Halacha 7
We may not even write the standard text13 of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture.
If [a scribe] writes the standard text of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture, and detaches it and afterwards writes the names of the husband and the wife, the date14 and the words, "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man," and the witnesses signed and it was given to her, it is acceptable.15
Halacha 8
If the husband writes the get on a leaf growing in a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, the get is unacceptable, even if he gives her the entire flowerpot. [This is] a decree, [lest] one detach [the leaf].16 He may, however, write [the get] on the pottery of the flowerpot and give it to her.
Halacha 9
What is the source that teaches that [the get] must be given to her for the sake of divorce? It is written: "... a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand," [implying that] he must place [it in her hand] for the sake of divorce. If, however, he gave it to her as a promissory note or as a mezuzah,17 or he placed it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she awoke and [discovered] it in her hand, the get is void.18 If, however, he told her afterwards, "Behold this is your get, the divorce is effective.19
Halacha 10
[The above principle must be clarified in the context of the following law.] A man tells witnesses, "See the get I am giving her," and then he tells [his wife]: "Take this promissory note," [the get] is effective. For he has told the witnesses that he was giving it to her for the sake of divorce. He told her that it was a promissory note only because he was embarrassed [to face] her.20
Halacha 11
At the time he gives the get, [a man who] divorces [his wife] must tell her: "Behold, your get," or "This is your get," or the like. If he places the get in her hand without saying anything, the get is not acceptable.21
When does the above apply? When the husband was not speaking to her about divorce [immediately beforehand]. If, however, he had been speaking to her about divorce [at the time], and he takes the get and places it in her hand without saying anything, the divorce is acceptable.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] a get has been placed on the ground, and [the husband] tells [his wife], "Pick your get up from the ground," or it was tied to his hand or to his thigh, and she takes it from him. Even if after it reaches her possession, he tells her, "Behold this is your get," it is void.
[The rationale is] that it is written: "And he will... place it in her hand," [implying] that she may not take it on her own accord.22 And [in these instances,] neither [the husband] nor his agent gave it to her.
Halacha 13
What is the source that teaches that [a get] must be given in the presence of witnesses? [Deuteronomy 19:16] states: "According to the words of two witnesses or those of three witnesses will the matter be established."
It is impossible that on one day a woman will be considered to be forbidden and sexual relations with her punishable by execution, and on the next day she should be permitted [to any man] unless [the divorce is observed by] witnesses.26
Therefore, if [a husband] gives [his wife] a get in private, or even if the exchange is observed by one witness, the divorce is utterly void.27
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
It is an ordinance [enacted] by our Sages that witnesses should sign a get, lest a [husband] give [his wife] a get in the presence of two [witnesses], and they die.32 [In such an instance,] the get she possesses is no more than a shard, for there are no witnesses [to testify to its authenticity]. [To prevent such a situation, our Sages] ordained that the testimony [regarding the authenticity of the get should be contained] within it.
Although witnesses [have signed] within, [the husband] must give [the get] to [his wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] - whether the same witnesses who signed it or two others. For in essence, divorce is established by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].
Halacha 16
When two witnesses sign [the get], and [the husband] transgresses and gives [the get] to [his wife] in private, or if it is discovered that the witnesses [who observed] the transfer [of the get] were unsuitable,33 the divorce is effected.34For the witnesses [who signed the get] are acceptable, and the get exists in the woman's possession. Some of the geonim have ruled that [the get] is unacceptable.35
Halacha 17
If the witnesses [who signed the get] are unsuitable - or even if one was unsuitable and one was acceptable - and [the husband] gave it to her in the presence of two acceptable witnesses, [the get] is unacceptable. It is as if it were a forgery.36
Halacha 18
If the witnesses signed [the get at a position] more than two lines away from the text [of the get], it is unacceptable.
How far may the witnesses sign away from the text? Less than two lines, so that their [names] will be read together with [the text].
When does the [disqualification] mentioned above apply? When the get is in the woman's possession, and there are no witnesses [who observed its] transfer. If, however, [the husband] gave [his wife the get] in the presence of witnesses, [the get] is acceptable even if the witnesses'[signatures] are far removed from the text.37 [Moreover, this ruling applies] even when there were not any witnesses who signed [the get]. For in essence, divorce is effected by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].
Halacha 19
It is required to read the get [aloud] in the presence of the witnesses who observe its transfer.38 Afterwards, it should be given to her. If it was given to her in their presence first, it should be taken from her and read [aloud] after it was given to her.39
[The following rule applies when the witnesses] read [the get] while it is the possession of the husband or his agent, and they return it to him. If he encloses it within his hand, [obscuring it from the witnesses' view] and then gives it to her, they should read it again.40
Halacha 20
[In the latter instance,] if they did not read it, and it is taken and thrown into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is effective. Since [the witnesses] read it first, we do not suspect that it was exchanged [for another document]. Moreover, even if the husband said, "It was another document [that I gave her] and not the getthat you read," his word is not accepted and the divorce is effective.
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
If he threw the get into [the woman's] courtyard,43 among barrels in the presence of witnesses,44 and when they looked for it they found a mezuzah or another document, we do not suspect that she [has been divorced]. [We assume that] the article that was found was the one that was thrown.
If two or three mezuzot or documents were discovered there, and we suspect that perhaps he threw a get and it was dragged away by mice, the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt.45
Halacha 23
The witnesses who sign the get must know how to read and sign [their names]. If they do not know how to read, we read [the get] in their presence,46 and they sign, provided they understand the wording of the get.47
If they do not know how to sign [their names], we write out their signatures for them on the paper with spittle or with other substances that will not leave a permanent mark,48 and they sign [their names] over these markings.49
This practice is not followed with regard to other legal documents. It is a leniency adopted with regard to bills of divorce, so that Jewish women will not be forced to live without a marriage partner.50 [This leniency is granted] because the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution, as we have explained.51
Halacha 24
Although the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution,52 our Sages ordained that the witnesses state their names in theget.53
Similarly, they ordained that the witnesses to the get must sign in the presence of each other. If either signed without the other, [the get] is unacceptable.54
Similarly, our Sages ordained that the date of a get and the place where it was written be recorded [within it], as is required with regard to other legal documents.55 [This was required] lest one's wife also be one's relative and she commit adultery. [Because of the husband's feelings for his wife,] he [might conceivably] write her a get after she had committed adultery and give it to her. If the get was not dated, she could say: "I was divorced before I committed adultery."56 [To prevent this from happening, our Sages] ordained that gittin be dated.
Halacha 25
In all the following instances, [the get] is unacceptable: a) a get signed by witnesses that is not dated, b) one that is predated,57 or postdated,58 c) one that was written during the day and signed on the following night;59 this applies even if they remained involved with the matter [of the divorce until the get was signed],60 d) the get was written in Jerusalem and [the scribe] erred and wrote [that it was written] in Lod.61
[For a get to be acceptable,] it is necessary that it be signed at the time it was written and in the place where it was written.
Halacha 26
A get is acceptable if [the husband] cut off [the portion of the get that contained] the date and gave it to her,62 or did not write the date, merely [the week - i.e.,] the first or the second week of a given month, or he specified merely the month or [merely] the year without mentioning the month, or even if he specified merely the seven-year cycle63 [in which the get was composed].
Similarly, a get is acceptable if [the husband] writes within it: "Today I divorced her." This implies the day on which the get was released.
Halacha 27
Similarly, [our Sages] ordained that the year of the ruling kingdom of that time should be mentioned in a get to gain the favor of the ruling authorities.64
[The following rules apply if] a person writes a get and dated it according to the years of a kingdom other [than that of his locale] or according to the years beginning from the Temple's construction or destruction. If it is customary for people in that locale to date [their documents] in this manner, it is acceptable. If this is not the local custom, it is unacceptable.
It has already become the universal Jewish custom to date gittin from the time of creation,65 or from the crowning of Alexander the Great, which is [the accepted means of dating] for legal documents.66 If one dates [a get] according to the years of a contemporary kingdom, it is acceptable only in the country over which that kingdom rules.
Halacha 28
[The following rules apply when] a person tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get for my wife, sign it and give it to her," and the matter was delayed several days or years, or the get was [discovered to contain an imperfection causing it] to be [considered] void, and it was necessary to write a new get that was acceptable, as will be explained.67 In such an instance, the date and the place when and where the get was written are recorded, and not the date and place when and where the husband told them to compose the get.
What is implied? If the husband told them [to write the get] in Jerusalem, in [the month of] Tishrei, and [the agents] delayed and did not write it until Nisan, at which time they were located in Lod, the get should be dated in Nisan, and Lod [should be recorded as its place], for this is where the get was written. [This is also the practice] with regard to other legal documents.68
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. III, Chapter 49), the Rambam explains a rationale for this mitzvah. If it were possible to effect a divorce through speech alone, a woman might commit adultery and then try to free herself of liability by claiming that she had been divorced previously. Requiring a written bill of divorce prevents such a possibility from arising.
|
| 2. |
The word get is Aramaic for legal document, and indeed when accompanied by a modifier is used to refer to other types of legal documents. Nevertheless, the most common use of the word is within the context of divorce, and when the term get appears without a modifier, it generally refers to a bill of divorce. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:5.)
|
| 3. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 222) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 579) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The intent is not that it is a mitzvah to divorce one's wife, but rather that if a man does desire to divorce his wife, it is a mitzvah for him to follow the rules prescribed by the Torah. To cite a parallel example: There is not a mitzvah to eat meat. If, however, one does desire to eat meat, it is a mitzvah to have the animal slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by the Torah.
|
| 4. |
The details of all these principles are described in the halachot and chapters that follow.
|
| 5. |
This is the law as prescribed by Scriptural and Talmudic law. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Gershom, one of the Sages who laid the foundations for Ashkenazi custom and tradition, ordained that, except in several unique instances, a man may not divorce his wife without her consent. This practice is followed universally within the Ashkenazi community (Ramah, Even HaEzer 119:6) and has been accepted by many Sephardim as well.
|
| 6. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.
|
| 7. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
|
| 8. |
This wording is used in the deed freeing a slave from servitude and is not appropriate with regard to a woman's divorce.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
|
| 10. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 18.
|
| 11. |
See Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 124:3), which states that the scribe should cut the paper or parchment used for the get to the right size before writing it. If he cuts it to size after he writes it, it is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law.
|
| 12. |
Even if the man gives the woman the entire plant and the land on which it grows, the divorce is void (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 124:4).
|
| 13. |
I.e., the standard text of the get, leaving blank places for the name of the man, his wife, the date and the line that states: "Behold, you are free to [marry] any man." See Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
|
| 14. |
The date of the get is only a Rabbinic requirement. Nevertheless, if it is written while the get is still attached, the get is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law.
|
| 15. |
I.e., at the outset, one should not write any portion of the get while it is attached to its source of nurture. After the fact, as long as the fundamental elements of the get were written after it was detached, it is acceptable.
|
| 16. |
The Chelkat Mechokek 124:12 and the Beit Shmuel 124:12 both emphasize that the term "unacceptable" - pasul in Hebrew - implies that while the get is acceptable according to Scriptural law, it is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree. Accordingly, they explain that this law applies when there is an interruption between the flowerpot and the earth. If there is no interruption, the get is void according to Scriptural law, because when a flowerpot has a hole at its base, it is considered as though it were attached to the ground.
Similarly, according to the Chelkat Mechokek 124:13, even when a get is written on the leaves of a plant growing in a flowerpot that does not have a hole at its base, the get is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree.
|
| 17. |
From this and the following halachah, it appears that the Rambam maintains that it is sufficient that the husband state his intent to the witnesses; the woman need not know that she is being divorced. Tosafot (Gittin 78a, quoted by the Ramah in Even HaEzer 136:5) states that although the woman need not be informed by her husband at the time the get is given, she must be informed by the witnesses afterwards, or in some way have this matter made known to her. The commentaries question whether or not the Rambam differs with this view.
|
| 18. |
With regard to the latter instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:3) states that even if he tells the witnesses: "See the get that I am giving her," the divorce is void.
From this clause, it appears that, in addition to the husband's intent, the Rambam requires that the woman take an active part in receiving the get, even if she is not totally aware of what it is.
|
| 19. |
According to Rav David Arameah, this clause applies to all the instances mentioned in the halachah.
|
| 20. |
We accept this rationale and do not say that he nullified the get with his statements.
|
| 21. |
As mentioned previously, the word pasul generally means "unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree." (See Chapter 2, Halachah 7; Chapter 10, Halachah 2.) In this instance, however, there are authorities who maintain that the Rambam's intent is that the get is utterly void. The Tur (Even HaEzer 136) and Rabbenu Nissim indeed rule in that manner.
The Beit Shmuel 136:1, however, explains that the get itself indicates the purpose for which it is given. Hence, in contrast to kiddushin (Hilchot Ishut 3:8), even if it is given in silence, it is acceptable according to Scriptural law and disqualified only by the Rabbis.
|
| 22. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam states this explicitly.
|
| 23. |
Based on Gittin 78a, Rabbenu Asher offers a slightly different conception of the activity necessary for a husband to perform so that helping his wife take the get is considered "giving." The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:1) quotes both views, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher.
|
| 24. |
Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 8:2), it appears that this statement must be made in the process of transferring the get, and not afterwards.
|
| 25. |
For he has performed an action making it easier for her to take the get.
|
| 26. |
The transition of a woman from a state where she is forbidden to one in which she is permitted is one of the "matters" referred to in the above verse.
|
| 27. |
The commentaries explain that there is a fundamental difference between the function of witnesses in cases involving financial matters and their function with regard to marriage and divorce. With regard to financial matters, the function of witnesses is to clarify the truth (eidei berur). With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is to notarize the event (eidei kiyyum). For a marriage bond to be established - or broken - even when the husband and wife agree that the event took place, witnesses must observe the proceedings (Tumim 90:14;Tzafenat Paneach; K'lallei HaTorah).
|
| 28. |
And not signed by the scribe. If the scribe also signs the get, the signature of one witness is enough for the get to be acceptable according to the Rambam. (See the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 2.)
|
| 29. |
According to Scriptural law, the get is acceptable, for the husband's writing is equivalent to the testimony of one hundred witnesses. It is unacceptable only because of a Rabbinic decree. Indeed, even if the witness did not sign the get, the exact same laws would apply. The Rambam mentions the signature of the get by a witness only to clarify that, even with such a signature - in contrast to a get signed by a scribe and another witness - the get is still disqualified by the Rabbis (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 130).
|
| 30. |
In such an instance, if the woman transgresses this Rabbinic prohibition and marries again on the basis of this get, she is allowed to remain married. Other authorities, however, maintain that since the get was given without being observed by witnesses, it is void according to Scriptural law, and the woman must leave her second husband (Beit Shmuel 130:31).
|
| 31. |
Although present in the standard texts of the Mishneh Torah, this phrase is lacking in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the text. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is self-evident from the previous clause, and therefore is most likely a printer's addition. For this reason, we have set it off in braces.
|
| 32. |
Gittin 34b, 36a explains that there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer maintains, as stated here by the Rambam, that the fundamental requirement for witnesses is with regard to the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get. The signing of theget by witnesses is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, maintains that the fundamental requirement is for the witnesses to sign the get. Most authorities follow the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer. The Beit Shmuel maintains, however, that a priori, the perspective of Rabbi Meir should also be respected.
At present, the custom is that the witnesses who sign the get also observe its transfer (Ramah,Even HaEzer 130:1).
|
| 33. |
I.e., they were deemed unworthy of serving as witnesses because of family ties to the couple, their violation of Scriptural law or other reasons, as detailed in Hilchot Edut, Chapters 9-16).
|
| 34. |
This ruling indicates that although Rabbi Eliezer places an emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get, he does not negate the effect of the signature of the get by witnesses.
|
| 35. |
The Beit Shmuel 133:3 notes that Tosafot and Rabbenu Asher maintain that such a get is utterly void. He questions why the Rambam states that this opinion considers it unacceptable merely according to Rabbinic decree. If Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the signature of witnesses as sufficient, seemingly the get would be of no consequence whatsoever, not merely disqualified by the Sages.
|
| 36. |
Gittin 4a explains that even Rabbi Eliezer, who puts the emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get, would disqualify such a get. Although - as stated in the following halachah, a get that was not signed by any witnesses is acceptable - when it is signed by unsuitable witnesses, it is not.
|
| 37. |
The Ra'avad states that if such a get were given, it would be unacceptable despite the fact that witnesses observed its transfer. Many authorities, however, follow the Rambam's view. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 130:1.)
The Beit Shmuel 130:3 questions the Rambam's decision, noting that in Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh27:5, the Rambam states that a contract of loan is invalid if the witnesses sign more than two lines away from the text, and he does not mention the option of making it acceptable by giving it in the presence of witnesses. He explains that laws regarding business contracts differ, because they must serve as proof over an extended period of time.
Kin'at Eliyahu explains that this explanation is supported by the distinction between the role of witnesses with regard to marriage and divorce, and their role with regard to business agreements mentioned in the notes on Halachah 13. Since the role of witnesses in business agreements is to clarify the terms of the agreement, such a document is not acceptable, because particulars can be added. With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is merely to notarize the event, and this is accomplished by the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get.
|
| 38. |
Since the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get are essential for the divorce to be effective, they must know that the document transferred is in fact a get (Beit Shmuel 135:1).
|
| 39. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 135:1) states that it is customary to read the get aloud both before and after it is given.
|
| 40. |
After quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 135:2) states that if the husband manifests possession of the get after giving a document of unknown contents to the woman, his word is accepted if she has not remarried already. If, however, she has remarried, his word is not accepted.
|
| 41. |
A second get is necessary. Even if the woman remarries, she must leave her second husband, as explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 3.
|
| 42. |
With regard to this, Gittin 19b states: "Just as his statements are not acceptable to cause her to be forbidden, they are not acceptable to cause her to be permitted."
|
| 43. |
Placing the get in a domain belonging to the woman is equivalent to placing it in her hand.
|
| 44. |
This instance also describes a situation in which the witnesses have not read the get. If they have read the get, the woman's status is in doubt, and we suspect that she has been divorced (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 135:5).
|
| 45. |
Since he threw only one document and others were discovered, we cannot say with assurance that the article discovered was the one thrown.
|
| 46. |
The present custom is that both of the witnesses and the Rabbi arranging the divorce read the get(Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 154; Seder HaGet 66).
|
| 47. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam maintains that if the witnesses do not understand the wording of the get, the divorce is not effective. There is no option of translating it for them, for a witness must have first-hand experience of the matter concerning which he testifies. Hearing its translation from another person would be considered second-hand experience. The Beit Shmuel 130:27, however, quotes other opinions that do not accept this understanding.
|
| 48. |
If, however, a permanent mark would be left, it is forbidden, for writing that covers an existing text is inadmissible.
|
| 49. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 130:16) states that this is not acceptable, and instead stencils for the witnesses' signature should be made.
|
| 50. |
We fear that the woman's husband will leave for a foreign country without giving her a divorce, or that he will die and she will be forced to perform either yibbum or chalitzah (Gittin 19a).
|
| 51. |
Halachah 15 above. I.e., if the matter were a point of Scriptural law, there would not be room for such leniency.
|
| 52. |
Generally, we follow the principle אין גוזרין גזרה לגזרה - i.e., a second Rabbinic safeguard is never attached to the first one. In these instances, however, an exception is made. Although the requirement for witnesses to sign a get is itself Rabbinic in origin, several safeguards were attached to facilitate the divorce laws.
|
| 53. |
I.e., originally the witnesses would sign, "I sign as a witness," without mentioning their names. This made the verification of their signatures a very difficult process. Therefore, our Sages required that they mention their names (Rashi, Gittin 36a).
|
| 54. |
Chapter 9, Halachah 29 explains, based on Gittin 10b, that this decree was instituted lest a husband tell a group of people that they should all act as witnesses, in which case each of them would be obligated to sign the get. Such a get would look acceptable if signed by only two witnesses, but in fact would not be acceptable. To prevent such a circumstance from arising, our Sages required that all the witnesses sign in the presence of each other.
|
| 55. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 23:6.
|
| 56. |
This would enable her to avoid receiving the death penalty. The Jerusalem Talmud (Gittin 4:3) records that such an incident did in fact take place.
|
| 57. |
I.e., the get was written in Kislev and dated in Marcheshvan. This would allow for the difficulty mentioned in the previous halachah and notes.
According to Rabbenu Asher, despite the fact that the requirement is Rabbinic in origin, a get that is predated is void entirely (bateil), not merely unacceptable (pasul). The Ramah (Even HaEzer127:2) quotes a third opinion, which states that even though the get is pasul, the second husband is required to divorce her, but she is forbidden to remarry her first husband.
The Rambam does not consider predated a get that was not given to the woman on the day it was written, as reflected in Chapter 2, Halachah 2. Other authorities differ, and their opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5), which states that a get that was not given on the day it was written is acceptable only when given by an agent.
|
| 58. |
E.g., the get was written in Kislev and dated in Tevet.
In this instance, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that a postdated get is acceptable. There are two reasons given by Rav Yosef Karo in the Kessef Mishneh to justify the Rambam's decision:
a) This could also be used as a cover-up, as explained in the previous halachah. For if we see that the date of the get is incorrect, we would disregard the date and consider the get as if it had no date at all.
b) The woman would not receive the rights to her property when due her. As long as she is married, her husband is entitled to the benefits from her property, but not after divorce. Postdating the get would entitle him to benefits beyond what is due him.
Tosafot agree with the Ra'avad that a postdated get is acceptable, but unlike the Ra'avad, maintain that the get is not effective until the date mentioned within. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:9) mentions both the views of Tosafot and of the Rambam, but appears to favor that of Tosafot.
|
| 59. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:2) mentions an opinion that states that in extenuating situations - e.g., when the woman has already remarried, or her husband has gone overseas - such a get is acceptable. The Beit Shmuel states that under such circumstances a get is acceptable, even if it is signed several days after it was written.
|
| 60. |
Other legal documents, by contrast, are acceptable if the principals were involved in the discussion of the matter that extended from the afternoon until after nightfall. For from the time the contract was written, it was a matter of public knowledge (Beit Shmuel 127:3).
|
| 61. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 128:1) differs and states that what is of fundamental importance is the place where the get was signed, and not the place where it was written. It is, however, customary for it to be written and signed in the same place. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
Our translation of the paragraph to follow is based on the interpretation of the Lechem Mishneh. The Maggid Mishneh follows a slightly different perspective.
|
| 62. |
The Rambam appears to follow Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Gittin 17b, that our Sages did not suspect that a person would attempt a deception of such a scale to deceive the court. Therefore, the get is acceptable. Rashi and others explain that when saying "our Sages did not suspect that a person would not attempt such large scale deception," the Talmud explains why this instance is not mentioned in the mishnah discussed beforehand. It should not be interpreted to mean that the get is acceptable.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:8) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. The Beit Shmuel 127:14, however, states that most authorities accept Rashi's view.
|
| 63. |
In this context, Gittin 17b explains that even in this instance, the date of the get - though imprecise - is somewhat useful: it excludes the time before or after the time period mentioned. Even when the date of the month is mentioned, the time is not pinpointed exactly, because the woman could have committed adultery in the morning and received the get in the afternoon. Therefore, even these less precise dates are also acceptable.
The Beit Shmuel 127:12 explains that a get that was predated or postdated is unacceptable because the date is false, not merely imprecise. In the former instances, although there is imprecision, there is no falsehood.
|
| 64. |
I.e., dating our legal documents according to the rulers' years indicates the rulers' importance (Rashi, Gittin 80a).
|
| 65. |
This is the present custom. The practice of dating documents according to the years of the gentile rulers was discontinued because those rulers ceased to attach importance to the matter.
|
| 66. |
Alexander's kingdom began 3450 years after creation. Since it encompassed the entire Western world, it provided a uniform dating pattern for people throughout the world. It is, however, no longer customary to date legal documents in this manner.
|
| 67. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
|
| 68. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 23:6.
|
Kelim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
All metal keilim that have independent names are susceptible to impurity except a door, a bolt, a lock, a holder for a door hinge a hinge, a beam, and a drainpipe. The latter are not susceptible to impurity, because they serve the earth or wood. This applies even before they are affixed to a building or to wood.
Any metal k'li that has an auxiliary name does not contract impurity independently because it is only part of a k'li. What is implied? The "scorpion" of a muzzle is impure and the iron plates placed on the cheeks of the animal on both sides are pure, because they do not have an independent name. When all these articles are connected to the reins, everything is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 2
When metal plates are placed on a person's cheeks for protection at the time of battle, they are not susceptible to impurity, because they do not have an independent name. If, however, they have a receptacle for water, they are susceptible to impurity like all receptacles.
Halacha 3
When a ring is fashioned like a bowl from below and a lentil from above, and the bowl becomes detached, it is susceptible to impurity in its own right, for it has a receptacle. The lentil is susceptible to impurity, because it has an independent name. The ring's wire, i.e., the portion that enters the ear or the nose, is not susceptible to impurity in its own right.
If a ring is made like a cluster of grapes and it becomes separated, it is pure. The rationale is that it does not have a receptacle, none of the "berries" has an independent name, and while broken up, it is not fit to be used as an ornament.
Halacha 4
A ring worn by young girls around a leg is referred to as a birit. It is not susceptible to impurity, because it does not have the form of an ornament. Instead, it is like a ring of a k'li or a ring one ties between his shoulders. The set of two rings which young girls put around their legs with a chain connecting one to the other is susceptible to ritual impurity. The rationale is that it is an ornament for young girls. This set is called kevalim.
Halacha 5
When there is a necklace with metal links on a string of wool or linen and the string snaps, each of the links is susceptible to impurity, because each is considered as a k'li independently. If the strand was of metal and the links of jewels, pearls, or glass and the links broke, but the chain remained, the chain is susceptible to impurity independently. The remnants of a necklace continue to impart impurity and to be susceptible to impurity as long as they are large enough to go around the neck of a young girl.
Halacha 6
All of the metal coverings of receptacles are pure. They are not susceptible to impurity, because they do not have an independent name with the exception of the covering of a samovar and the covering of doctor's prescription box. Since bandages are placed in it, it becomes a receptacle.
Halacha 7
When one scrapes down and polishes the metal cover of a container, making it into a mirror, it is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 8
All metal weights are susceptible to impurity. They are called unkiyot. The wooden crossbeam of a scale is susceptible to impurity, because of the weights hanging from it.
When does the above apply? To the crossbeams of the scales of flax merchants and wool merchants. The crossbeams of the scales of private persons are not susceptible to impurity unless the weights are permanently affixed to it.
Halacha 9
When weights have been broken, even though one brought the pieces together and weighed objects with them, they are not susceptible to impurity. If one designated the broken pieces as half-litra weights, one-third-litra weights, or one-quarter-litra weights, they are susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 10
When a sela was disqualified, if it was adjusted to use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 11
A porter's hook is pure. Hooks used by perfume salesmen are susceptible to impurity. The hooks of bed-poles are pure. Those of a small platform are susceptible to impurity.
The hooks of the bee-hived-shaped snare used by fishermen to catch fish are pure. Those of a chest are susceptible to impurity. The hooks of wooden lamps are pure. Those of a table are susceptible to impurity.
This is the general principle: Whenever a k'li is susceptible to impurity in and of itself according to Scriptural Law, its metal hook and its chain are susceptible to impurity. Whenever a k'li is not susceptible to impurity, e.g., flat wooden keilim, oversized wooden keilim, and the like, its metal hook and its chain are not susceptible to impurity. When either of them is considered independently, it is pure, because neither a hook or a chain is considered as a k'li in its own right; they are only as parts of a k'li. Even hooks on the wall upon which keilim, clothes, and the like are hung are pure.
Halacha 12
When a chain has a lock, it is susceptible to impurity. If it is meant to secure an entity, it is pure.
Halacha 13
Chains used by wholesalers are susceptible to impurity, because they are used to lock the stores. Those owned by private persons are pure, because they are meant only as ornaments.
Halacha 14
The chains of the measurers of land and the pegs that they insert into the ground at the time they conduct their measurement are susceptible to impurity. Those used by gatherers of wood are pure, because they serve wood.
Halacha 15
The four handbreadths of a chain for a large bucket that are closest to the bucket contract impurity with the bucket for it is necessary for its use. The remainder is pure, because it does not have an independent name. Ten handbreadths of the chain of a small bucket are susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 16
All of the following: a metal ball, an anvil, an iron shaft of a builder, a carpenter's leveling tool, a smith's "donkey," plumb-weights used by builders, the iron beams used to press olives, a metal dispenser for a mill, the blade with which scribes cut of the tips of the reeds with which they write, a metal pen, a stylus and a ruler with which scribes rule lines are all susceptible to impurity. For each one of these articles has an independent name.
Kelim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
Pegs that reinforce a ceiling that are made to be pounded into wood are not susceptible to impurity. Similarly, this ruling applies to pegs that are pounded into walls to serve as hangers. If they are made to serve as an independent k'li, they are susceptible to impurity.
What is implied? A hook that was installed to enable one to open and lock a door, to remove a wick, or it was placed in a handmill or a mill powered by a donkey is susceptible to impurity. If it was made to open a barrel, it is pure unless its point is sharpened.
Halacha 2
A peg that is made as a sign to guard an entrance is not susceptible to impurity. Similarly, the peg of a money-changer on which he hangs his scale and his purse is pure. Similarly, pegs for metal brushes are pure even though these pegs have a different form than other pegs used as hangers.
Halacha 3
A bloodletter's needle, i.e., the utensil with which he draws blood, is susceptible to impurity. The pointer of a sundial is pure.
Halacha 4
A weaver's needle, i.e., the long needle that is like a spit which the weaver inserts into a cylinder coming from a reed or wood around which he winds the threads is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 5
These are the metal keilim in a wagon that are susceptible to impurity: the metal shaft, the wooden yoke, the wings into which the straps are inserted, the metal rod below the necks of the animals, the support, the "limper," the containers, the bell, the hook, and the pegs which attach all the different parts of the wagon together.
These are the components of a wagon that are pure: a plated wooden shaft, the wings that are made only as ornamental articles, a reed that makes a sound, a lead plate hanging from the neck of an animal, the metal rimming of a wheel, ornamental plates, and coatings. Similarly, all other pegs it contains are pure.
Halacha 6
The scorpion of the olive press is susceptible to ritual impurity. Even though a chest for ground lentils is pure, if there is a metal carriage below it, it is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 7
A pepper mill is susceptible to ritual impurity because of each of the three keilimof which it is comprised: one is susceptible to impurity because it is a metal k'li, another, because it is a receptacle, and the third, because it is a sieve.
Halacha 8
A metal door in a cabinet of a homeowner is not susceptible to impurity. Such a door in a cabinet of a doctor is susceptible to impurity, because bandages are placed there and scissors are hung from it.
Halacha 9
Metal plates on which a hot pot is placed are susceptible to impurity. Those that are affixed to a range are pure.
Halacha 10
Tongs with which one squeezes the wick are susceptible to impurity. The metal bars that hold up a mill from its front are not susceptible to impurity, because they are made only in order to reinforce the mill.
Halacha 11
A bolt that locks double-doors: if it is made of metal, it is impure. If it is made of wood coated with metal, it is pure
Halacha 12
The pointed end of a lock and the base of a lock are impure.
Halacha 13
The ball of a weaving needle is pure, because it serves the wood.
Halacha 14
A weaving needle, a spindle, a walking stick, and a symphonia or flute of metal are susceptible to impurity. If they are made of wood and coated with metal, they are pure with the exception of a symphonia which, if it has a receptacle for wings, is impure even if it is coated.
Halacha 15
With regard to a trumpet that is split up into different pieces: If only a craftsman would know how to put it together, it is susceptible to impurity while the pieces are connected. If anyone can take it apart and reconstruct it, it is not susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 16
The end of the round trumpet on which one places his mouth when blowing is susceptible to impurity independently. The wide portion is not susceptible to impurity independently. While they are connected, everything is susceptible to impurity.
A similar ruling: The branches of a candelabrum are not susceptible to impurity, because they have an accompanying name. Its flower and its base are susceptible to impurity. While they are connected, all the components are susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 17
A target for arrows that has metal strips is susceptible to impurity. A metal boot placed on prisoners' feet is pure. A metal collar is susceptible to impurity.
A saw whose teeth were inserted into a slit in a lintel and project into the doorway is not susceptible to impurity even though one makes use of it. If he inserted it in the slit of the doorway after it became impure, it remains impure until one affixes it with a nail. If he turned it over, whether from above, from below or from the sides, it is pure.
Kelim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
To what degree must metal keilim be broken so as not to be susceptible to ritual impurity or to be purified from ritual impurity? Everything depends on the nature of the k'li involved.
Halacha 2
As long as the k'li can be used in a way resembling its intended task, it is considered as a k'li and is considered like a complete k'li.
What is implied? A metal bucket that was broken but still can be used to draw water is considered a k'li as it was before. An urn is still susceptible to impurity if it can be used to heat water; a samovar, if it can contain selaim; a large pot, if it can contain metal pitchers; a metal pitcher, if it can contain perutot, wine measures, if they can measure wine; oil measures, if they can measure oil.
When three holes, one next to the other, in the bottom of a strainer for mustard seed, were widened, it is pure, because it is no longer fit for its original task. When the hollow of a builder's shovel is removed, it is pure, even though it appears like a hammer, for it is no longer useful for its original purpose, but instead, as a hammer, and it was not made to pound objects as a hammer does. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
When the teeth of a comb for wool have been removed, it is impure as long as three teeth remain in one place. If, however, one of the external teeth was one of the three, it is pure, because it is no longer useful for combing flax, because the exterior tooth is not effective when combing. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a metal k'li can no longer be used for its intended purpose, it is pure.
If two teeth were taken and made into tweezers, they are impure. If one was removed and it is used for the sake of a lamp or for thread to be wound around it for weaving, it is susceptible to impurity. If it was a thick and large tooth, even though it was not prepared for a particular function, it contracts impurity independently.
Halacha 4
When the teeth of a comb for flax were removed, but two remained, it is impure. If only one remains, it is pure.
Halacha 5
When a kedum is broken, but its hooks are intact, they are still impure, because it is possible to use them to remove a bucket from a well as before.
Halacha 6
When the teeth of a saw are removed in an alternating pattern, it is pure. If a portion the full length of a sit remained intact in one place, it is impure, because it is possible to saw with the portion that remains.
Halacha 7
A hatchet, a blade, a plane, a drill, that have been damaged are still susceptible to impurity. If their steel portion is removed, they are pure. If any of them is divided into two, they are impure with the exception of the drill, because it is no longer possible to make holes with it. A runkey alone is not susceptible to impurity, because it is only part of a k'li.
Halacha 8
When a sword, a knife, a knife that is curved like a sickle, a spear, a hand sickle, a harvesting sickle, a small household scissors, or a larger barber's scissors are divided in two, each of their components is susceptible to impurity, because it is still able to be used for a task resembling its primary function.
Halacha 9
When a shaver is divided into two, it is pure, because in that state it can only remove hair with difficulty.
Halacha 10
When armor is divided along its length, it is pure. When divided along its width, if it still can serve its initial purpose, it is impure. When does it become pure? When it becomes worn out to the extent that it can no longer perform its original task.
The following rules apply if it became worn out, but its major portion remained intact. If the upper portion remains, it is impure. If it covers the lower portion, it is pure. If one cut of part of the armor and made it a link for an ornament, it is susceptible to ritual impurity.
Halacha 11
A bellows used by goldsmiths, glassmakers, blacksmiths, and glaziers that was divided into two lengthwise, is pure. If it is split widthwise, when it can serve its initial purpose, it is impure. If not, it is pure.
Halacha 12
When tongs used by barbers, doctors, or glassmakers are divided into two, they are impure. Those used by blacksmiths that are divided are pure. The rationale is that at the outset, they are used to stir coals and in their present state, they can be used to stir coals.
Halacha 13
When a metal mirror was broken or became scratched, if it does not reflect the majority of the face, it is pure. If it reflects the majority of the face, it is still considered a k'li as it was previously.
Halacha 14
When either the eye or the point of a needle was removed, it is pure. If an adjustment was made with it so that thread could be wound around it and it could be used as an embroidery needle, it is impure. In contrast, when the eye of a sackmaker's needle is removed, it is impure, because the other end can still be used as a stylus.
Halacha 15
Different rules apply to a needle around which scarlet thread, gold thread, or the like is wound as is the practice of embroiderers. Whether the eye or the point is removed, it is still impure, because it is not used to sew.
Halacha 16
When a needle has become rusty, if the rust prevents sewing, it is pure. If not, it is impure.
Halacha 17
When a sword or a knife become rusty, they are pure. If they are then smoothed or sharpened, they return to their initial impurity. Similarly, the hook on top of a flax spindle that was straightened is pure. If it was bent back again, it returns to its initial impurity.
Halacha 18
A key that is curved like a knee which is broken in the middle of its curve is pure. Similarly, a key that is shaped like a gamma which is broken at its vertex is pure. In both instances, they can no longer be used to open locks and thus they are not able to be used for their initial purpose.
If the broken portion has teeth and holes, it is impure, because it still can be used as a key. If its teeth are removed, it is impure because of the holes. If the holes are filled, it is impure because of the teeth. If the teeth were removed and the holes filled or the holes were expanded until they were joined, it is pure.
Halacha 19
The following rules apply when a k'li consists of a rod with a cup on one side used to pick up ash and a fork on the other side used to roast meat. If the cup was removed, it is impure because of the fork's teeth. If the fork's teeth are removed, it is impure because of the cup. Similarly, with regard to a utensil used to paint one's eyes, if the cup with which the dye is collected is removed, it is impure because of the applier used to dye the eye. If the applier is removed, it is impure because of the cup.
Halacha 20
Similar laws apply with regard to a k'li that has an iron net on one end on which food is roasted and teeth to remove meat from a pot or from a fire on the other end. If the net was removed, it is impure because of the teeth. If the teeth are removed, it is impure because of the net.
The same principles apply with regard to a metal pen which has one end that is used to write and another end that is used to erase. If the writing utensil is removed, it is impure, because of the eraser. If the eraser is removed, it is impure because of the writing utensil. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations provided the remaining instrument can still be used for its initial purpose.
What is implied? When the eraser is removed from a pen, but the writing utensil remains, if it is long enough to reach his knuckles, it is impure because it is possible to hold it and write with it. When the writing instrument is removed and the eraser remains, if its length matches the width of one's hand, it is impure, because one can erase with it. If less remains, it is pure. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 21
When the narrow edge of a hatchet - i.e., the side that a carpenter uses to carve - is removed, it is impure, because of the side used to chop. If the side used to chop is removed, it is impure because of the narrow edge. If the socket into which the handle is inserted is broken, it is pure.
Halacha 22
When a lance is damaged, it is still considered as a k'li until its major portion is removed. If, however, the socket into which the head of the lance is inserted is removed, it is pure.
Halacha 23
A plow is also called a malmad. It is comprised of a long, thick beam with something like a sharp peg implanted in its end from above. This metal peg is called a darvan. On the other end below is a metal projection like a spear. The wood that is inserted into it and this iron piece is called a lance.
Halacha 24
When a metal pipe which is like a tube becomes impure, if it is affixed to a staff or a door and is thus attached to wood, it becomes pure. If it did not contract impurity and it was affixed to a staff or a door, it is susceptible to impurity in its place. For any metal k'li that was fixed to a beam or a wall is susceptible to impurity until its function is changed. Therefore a metal baker's sheet that was affixed to a wall is impure. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations involving other metal objects that were affixed to wooden objects whether containers or flat keilim. They are susceptible to impurity as they were beforehand.
• Monday, Menachem Av 18, 5775 · 03 August 2015
"Today's Day"
Thursday Menachem Av 18 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Eikev, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: This lowly world, (p. 413) ...nests in Asiyah. (p. 415).
The Mitteler Rebbe quoted the Alter Rebbe: Ahavat yisrael must possess one to the very core of life itself.1
FOOTNOTES
1. Ad mitsui hanefesh. The identical phrase is used by the Sages (Sifri, Devarim 6:5) to describe the required degree of loving G-d, "...with all your soul etc...," i.e. up to, and including, readiness to give up one's life.
Daily Thought:
The Goal
Time began. So we are told in the first phrase of our Torah. Today, the hard data of astronomers and physicists concurs. As impossible as it is to imagine, all we know of—space, time, the very nature of things—all has a beginning.
And it has a goal, an ultimate state. Every era, every event, every moment through which time passes is a step closer to that goal.[Likkutei Sichot, vol. 3, pp. 976–977, fn. 19; Likkutei Sichot, vol. 5, pp. 62–63; Bati Legani 5731:5.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment