| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Wednesday, 25 Kislev, 5778 · December 13, 2017 - Chanukah Day 1Menorah Lighting
Please set your location to view Menorah lighting times ––:––
Torah Reading:
Chanukah 1: Numbers 7:17
Chanukah 1: Numbers 7:1 (A: v, S: iv) On the day Moshe finished putting up the tabernacle, he anointed and consecrated it, all its furnishings, and the altar with its utensils. After anointing and consecrating them, 2 the leaders of Isra’el, who were heads of their father’s clans, made an offering. These were the tribal leaders in charge of those counted in the census. 3 They brought their offering before Adonai, six covered wagons and twelve oxen — a wagon for every two leaders and for each an ox — and presented them in front of the tabernacle.
4 Adonai said to Moshe, 5 “Receive these from them; they are to be used for the service in the tent of meeting. Give them to the L’vi’im, to each as needed for his duties.” 6 So Moshe took the wagons and oxen and gave them to the L’vi’im. 7 He gave two wagons and four oxen to the descendants of Gershon, in keeping with the needs of their duties. 8 Four wagons and eight oxen he gave to the descendants of M’rari, in keeping with the needs of their duties, directed by Itamar the son of Aharon the cohen. 9 But to the descendants of K’hat he gave none, because their duties involved the holy articles, which they carried on their own shoulders.
10 The leaders brought the offering for dedicating the altar on the day it was anointed. The leaders brought their offering before the altar, 11 and Adonai said to Moshe, “They are to present their offerings to dedicate the altar, each leader on his own day.”
(S: v) 12 Nachshon the son of ‘Amminadav, from the tribe of Y’hudah, presented his offering on the first day. 13 He offered one silver dish weighing 130 shekels [three-and-a-quarter pounds] and one silver basin of seventy shekels (using the sanctuary shekel) [one-and-three-quarters pounds], both full of fine flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering; 14 one gold pan of ten shekels [one-quarter pound], full of incense; 15 one young bull, one ram, one male lamb in its first year as a burnt offering, 16 one male goat as a sin offering, 17 and, for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Nachshon the son of ‘Amminadav.
---
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Kindle Two Chanukah Lights tonightToday is the first day of the eight-day festival of Chanukah. In commemoration of the miracle of the oil (see "Today in Jewish History") we kindle the Chanukah lights -- oil lamps or candles -- each evening for eight days, increasing the number of lights each evening.
In the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall; thus, the first Chanukah light is kindled on the preceding evening, which is when the Hebrew date of Kislev 25 begins.Tonight is the eve of the 2nd day of Chanukah, so we kindle two lights in the Chanukah menorah.
The lights—which ideally should be kindled soon after sunset—must burn for at least half an hour after nightfall. Learn more about the proper lighting time here.
For a more detailed guide to Chanukah lighting click here. For text and audio of the blessings recited before lighting, click here.
Additional Chanukah observances and customs are listed below:
• Hallel & Al HaNissim
Special prayers of thanksgiving -- Hallel (in its full version) and Al HaNissim -- are added to the daily prayers and Grace After Meals on all eight days of Chanukah. Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted for the duration of trhe festival.
• Latkes, Sufganiot & Dairy Foods
On Chanukah we eat foods fried in oil -- such as latkes (potato cakes) and sufganiot(doughnuts) -- in commemoration of the miracle of the oil.
It is also customary to eat dairy foods in commemoration of Judith's heroic deed.
• Dreidel
It is customary to play dreidel -- a game played with a spinning top inscribed with the Hebrew letters Nun, Gimmel, Hei and Shin, which spell the phrase Nes Gadol Hayah Sham, "a great miracle happened there." (It is said that when the Greeks forbade the study of Torah, Jewish children continued the study with their teachers in caves and cellars; when the agents of the king were seen approaching, the children would hide their scrolls and start to play with spinning tops...)
Links: About the dreidel
• Chanukah Gelt
It is an age-old custom to distribute gifts of Chanukah gelt ("Chanukah money") to children on Chanukah. (It was the custom of the rebbes of Chabad-Lubavitch to give Chanukah gelt to their children and other family members on the fourth or fifth night of Chanukah; more recently, however, the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged the giving of Chanukah gelt every day of the festival -- except for Shabbat, when handling money is forbidden.)
Today in Jewish History:
• Cain Kills Abel (3720 BCE)
The first murder in history occurred on the 25th of Kislev in the year 41 from creation (3720 BCE), when Adam and Eve's eldest son, Cain, killed his younger brother, Abel, as recounted in the 4th chapter of Genesis.
Link: From the Midrash
• Mishkan completed (1312 BCE)
The vessels, tapestries, wall sections and other components of the Mishkan (the portable sanctuary or "Tabernacle" built under Moses' direction to house the Divine Presence during the Israelites' journeys through the desert) were completed on the 25th of Kislev in the year 2449 from creation (1312 BCE). The Mishkan was not assembled, however, until 3 months later, when, beginning on Adar 25 of that year, it was erected and taken down daily for a 7-day "training" period prior to its dedication on the 1st of Nissan. Our Sages tell us that the day of Kislev 25 was compensated 12 centuries later, when the Maccabees dedicated the Holy Temple on Kislev 25, 3622 (139 BCE -- see below).
Links: The Mishkan described in the Torah and commentaries; from the Chassidic masters on the Mishkan
• Chanukah Miracle (139 BCE)
On the 25th of Kislev in the year 3622 from creation, the Maccabees liberated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, after defeating the vastly more numerous and powerful armies of the Syrian-Greek king Antiochus IV, who had tried to forcefully uproot the beliefs and practices of Judaism from the people of Israel. The victorious Jews repaired, cleansed and rededicated the Temple to the service of G-d. But all the Temple's oil had been defiled by the pagan invaders; when the Jews sought to light the Temple's menorah (candelabra), they found only one small cruse of ritually pure olive oil. Miraculously, the one-day supply burned for eight days, until new, pure oil could be obtained. In commemoration, the Sages instituted the 8-day festival of Chanukah, on which lights are kindled nightly to recall and publicize the miracle.
Link: The Story of Chanukah
• R. Chizkiah Medini (1904)
Kislev 25 is the yahrtzeit (date of passing) of Rabbi Chaim Chizkiah Medini (1832-1904), author of the Halachic encyclopedia Sdei Chemed.
Daily Quote: "See, I give you today a blessing and a curse" (Deuteronomy 11:26). Moses is giving the Children of Israel the power of sight: to perceive that the true nature of evil is nothing more than a transmutation and distortion of the Divine good. When evil is thus seen, it can be transformed into the good that it essentially is. (The Lubavitcher Rebbe)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Mikeitz, 4th Portion Genesis 41:53-42:18 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Genesis Chapter 41
53And the seven years of plenty that were in the land of Egypt were finished. נגוַתִּכְלֶ֕ינָה שֶׁ֖בַע שְׁנֵ֣י הַשָּׂבָ֑ע אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָיָ֖ה בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
54And the seven years of famine began, as Joseph had said, and there was famine in all the lands, but throughout the land of Egypt there was bread. נדוַתְּחִלֶּ֜ינָה שֶׁ֣בַע שְׁנֵ֤י הָֽרָעָב֙ לָב֔וֹא כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר אָמַ֣ר יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֤י רָעָב֙ בְּכָל־הָ֣אֲרָצ֔וֹת וּבְכָל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם הָ֥יָה לָֽחֶם:
55When the entire land of Egypt hungered, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread, but Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, "Go to Joseph; what he tells you, do." נהוַתִּרְעַב֙ כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיִּצְעַ֥ק הָעָ֛ם אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה לַלָּ֑חֶם וַיֹּ֨אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֤ה לְכָל־מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ לְכ֣וּ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמַ֥ר לָכֶ֖ם תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ:
When the entire land of Egypt hungered: For their grain, which they had stored, had decayed, except that of Joseph. — [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7]
ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים: שהרקיבה תבואתם שאצרו חוץ משל יוסף:
what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, “This is what he said to us,” he (Pharaoh) said to them, “Why didn’t you gather grain? Didn’t he announce to you that years of famine were coming?” They replied, “We gathered much, but it rotted.” He (Pharaoh) replied,“If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?” - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5]
אשר יאמר לכם תעשו: לפי שהיה יוסף אומר להם שימולו, וכשבאו אצל פרעה ואומרים כך הוא אומר לנו, אמר להם למה לא צברתם בר, והלא הכריז לכם ששני הרעב באים, אמרו לו אספנו הרבה והרקיבה, אמר להם אם כן כל אשר יאמר לכם תעשו, הרי גזר על התבואה והרקיבה, מה אם יגזור עלינו ונמות:
56Now the famine spread over all the face of the land, and Joseph opened all [the storehouses] in which there was [grain], and he sold [it] to the Egyptians, and the famine intensified in the land of Egypt. נווְהָֽרָעָ֣ב הָיָ֔ה עַ֖ל כָּל־פְּנֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּפְתַּ֨ח יוֹסֵ֜ף אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֤ר בָּהֶם֙ וַיִּשְׁבֹּ֣ר לְמִצְרַ֔יִם וַיֶּֽחֱזַ֥ק הָֽרָעָ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
Now the famine spread over all the face of the land: Heb. פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ. Who are the face of the land? These are the rich. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:5]
על כל פני הארץ: מי הם פני הארץ, אלו העשירים:
all [the storehouses] in which there was: As the Targum renders: in which there was grain.
את כל אשר בהם: כתרגומו די בהון עיבורא:
and he sold [it] to the Egyptians: Heb. וַיִשְׁבֹּר לְמִצְרַיִם. The word שֶׁבֶר is [sometimes] an expression of selling and [sometimes] an expression of buying. Here it is used as an expression of selling. [In the verse]“Return, buy (שִׁבְרוּ) us a little food” (Gen. 43:2), it is an expression of buying. Do not say that it applies only to grain, for also with wine and milk we find:“and go buy (שִׁבְרוּ) without money and without a price, wine and milk” (Isa. 55:1).
וישבור למצרים: שבר לשון מכר ולשון קנין הוא, כאן משמש לשון מכר, (להלן מג ב) שברו לנו מעט אוכל, לשון קנין. ואל תאמר אינו כי אם בתבואה, שאף ביין וחלב מצינו (ישעיה נה א) ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב:
57And all [the inhabitants of] the land came to Egypt to Joseph to purchase, for the famine had intensified in the entire land. נזוְכָל־הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ בָּ֣אוּ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה לִשְׁבֹּ֖ר אֶל־יוֹסֵ֑ף כִּֽי־חָזַ֥ק הָֽרָעָ֖ב בְּכָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:
And all [the inhabitants of] the land came to Egypt: to Joseph to purchase, but if you interpret it (this verse) according to its sequence, it should have been written:“to purchase from (מִן) Joseph.”
וכל הארץ באו מצרימה לשבור אל יוסף: (סרסהו ופרשהו וכל הארץ באו מצרים אל יוסף). אם תפרשהו כסדרו היה צריך לכתוב לשבור מן יוסף:
Genesis Chapter 42
1Jacob saw that there was grain being sold in Egypt; so Jacob said to his sons, "Why do you appear satiated?" אוַיַּ֣רְא יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב כִּ֥י יֶשׁ־שֶׁ֖בֶר בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יַֽעֲקֹב֙ לְבָנָ֔יו לָ֖מָּה תִּתְרָאֽוּ:
Jacob saw that there was grain being sold in Egypt: From where did he see it? Is it not true that he did not see it, only that he heard of it, as it is said: “Behold, I have heard, etc.” (verse 2) ? What then is the meaning of “saw” ? He saw with the divine “mirror” that he still had hope (שֶׂבֶר) in Egypt, but it was not a real prophecy to explicitly inform him that this was Joseph. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:6]
וירא יעקב כי יש שבר במצרים: ומהיכן ראה, והלא לא ראה אלא שמע, שנאמר (להלן מב ב) הנה שמעתי וגו', ומהו וירא, ראה באספקלריא של קדש שעדיין יש לו שבר במצרים. ולא היתה נבואה ממש להודיעו בפירוש שזה יוסף:
Why do you appear satiated?“: Heb. לָמָה תִּתְרָאוּ. Why do you show yourselves before the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau as if you are satiated? For at that time they still had grain (Ta’anith 10b). (And it appears to me that it should be explained according to its simple meaning: לָמָה תִּתְרָאוּ -Why should everyone stare at you and wonder at you that you are not seeking food for yourselves before what you have in your hands is depleted.) From others I heard that it (תִּתְרָאוּ) is an expression of emaciation. [Thus:] Why should you become emaciated because of the famine? Similar to this is”And he who emaciates [others] (וּמַרְוֶה) -he too will become emaciated (יוֹרֶא)" (Prov. 11:25)
למה תתראו: למה תראו עצמכם בפני בני ישמעאל ובני עשו כאלו אתם שבעים, שבאותה שעה עדיין היה להם תבואה. [ולי נראה פשוטו למה תתראו, למה יהיו הכל מסתכלין בכם ומתמיהים בכם שאין אתם מבקשים לכם אוכל בטרם שיכלה מה שבידכם]. ומפי אחרים שמעתי שהוא לשון כחישה, למה תהיו כחושים ברעב. ודומה לו (משלי יא כה) ומרוה גם הוא יורה:
2And he said, "Behold, I have heard that there is grain being sold in Egypt. Go down there and buy us [some] from there, so that we will live and not die." בוַיֹּ֕אמֶר הִנֵּ֣ה שָׁמַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֥י יֶשׁ־שֶׁ֖בֶר בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם רְדוּ־שָׁ֨מָּה֙ וְשִׁבְרוּ־לָ֣נוּ מִשָּׁ֔ם וְנִֽחְיֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א נָמֽוּת:
Go down there: Heb. רְדוּ. But he did not say,“Go (לְכוּ).” He alluded to the 210 years that they were enslaved in Egypt, according to the numerical value of רְדוּ. — [from Gen Rabbah 91:2, Tan. Mikeitz 8]
רדו שמה: ולא אמר לכו, רמז למאתים ועשר שנים שנשתעבדו למצרים, כמנין רד"ו:
3So Joseph's ten brothers went down to buy grain from Egypt. גוַיֵּֽרְד֥וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵ֖ף עֲשָׂרָ֑ה לִשְׁבֹּ֥ר בָּ֖ר מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:
So Joseph’s…brothers went down: But Scripture did not write “the sons of Jacob.” This teaches that they regretted selling him and decided to behave toward him in a brotherly manner and to ransom him for whatever amount of money would be demanded of them. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:6, Tan. Mikeitz 8]
וירדו אחי יוסף: ולא כתב בני יעקב, מלמד שהיו מתחרטים במכירתו ונתנו לבם להתנהג עמו באחוה ולפדותו בכל ממון שיפסקו עליהם:
ten: Why is this written? Is it not written, (verse 4)“But Joseph’s brother, Benjamin, Jacob did not send” ? [It is therefore obvious that they were only ten.] But [this is what it means:] concerning brotherhood, they were divided into ten, for neither the love they all had for him (Joseph) nor the hate they all had for him was equal, [hence, in the attitude of brotherhood, they were divided into ten.] As concerning buying grain, they all were of one accord (lit., one heart). - [from Gen. Rabbah 91:2]
עשרה: מה תלמוד לומר, והלא כתיב (פסוק ד) ואת בנימין אחי יוסף לא שלח, אלא לענין האחוה היו חלוקין לעשרה, שלא היתה אהבת כולם ושנאת כולם שוה לו, אבל לענין לשבור בר כולם לב אחד להם:
4But Joseph's brother, Benjamin, Jacob did not send with his brothers, because, he said, "Lest misfortune befall him." דוְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֙ אֲחִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף לֹֽא־שָׁלַ֥ח יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב אֶת־אֶחָ֑יו כִּ֣י אָמַ֔ר פֶּן־יִקְרָאֶ֖נּוּ אָסֽוֹן:
“Lest misfortune befall him.”: And at home, could not misfortune befall him? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said: From here [we learn] that Satan accuses [a person] at the time of danger. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:9]
פן יקראנו אסון: ובבית לא יקראנו אסון, אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב מכאן שהשטן מקטרג בשעת הסכנה:
5So the sons of Israel came to purchase among those who came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan. הוַיָּבֹ֨אוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לִשְׁבֹּ֖ר בְּת֣וֹךְ הַבָּאִ֑ים כִּֽי־הָיָ֥ה הָֽרָעָ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן:
among those who came: They hid themselves [in the crowd] so that they would not be recognized, because their father had commanded them not to all appear at one entrance, but for each to enter through his own entrance, so that the evil eye would have no power over them, for they were all handsome and strong [and thus would be envied]. — [from Tan. Mikeitz 8, Gen. Rabbah 91:6]
בתוך הבאים: מטמינין עצמן שלא יכירום, לפי שצוה להם אביהם שלא יתראו כולם בפתח אחד אלא שיכנס כל אחד בפתחו, כדי שלא תשלוט בהם עין הרע שכולם נאים וכולם גבורים:
6Now Joseph was the ruler over the land; it was he who sold grain to the entire populace of the land, and Joseph's brothers came and prostrated themselves to him, with their faces to the ground. ווְיוֹסֵ֗ף ה֚וּא הַשַּׁלִּ֣יט עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ ה֥וּא הַמַּשְׁבִּ֖יר לְכָל־עַ֣ם הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיָּבֹ֨אוּ֙ אֲחֵ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיִּשְׁתַּֽחֲווּ־ל֥וֹ אַפַּ֖יִם אָֽרְצָה:
and prostrated themselves to him, with their faces to the ground: Heb. וַיִשְׁתַּחִווּ. They prostrated themselves to him on their faces, and so every [expression of] הִשְׁתַּחִוָאָה means spreading out hands and feet. — [from Shev. 16b]
וישתחוו לו אפים: נשתטחו לו על פניהם, וכן כל השתחואה פשוט ידים ורגלים הוא:
7And Joseph saw his brothers, and he recognized them, but he made himself a stranger to them, and he spoke to them harshly, and he said to them, "Where do you come from?" And they said, "From the land of Canaan to purchase food." זוַיַּ֥רְא יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־אֶחָ֖יו וַיַּכִּרֵ֑ם וַיִּתְנַכֵּ֨ר אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם וַיְדַבֵּ֧ר אִתָּ֣ם קָשׁ֗וֹת וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ מֵאַ֣יִן בָּאתֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנַ֖עַן לִשְׁבָּר־אֹֽכֶל:
but he made himself a stranger: He behaved toward them like a stranger verbally, by speaking harshly. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:6, Tan. Mikeitz 8]
ויתנכר אליהם: נעשה להם כנכרי בדברים, לדבר קשות:
8Now Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him. חוַיַּכֵּ֥ר יוֹסֵ֖ף אֶת־אֶחָ֑יו וְהֵ֖ם לֹ֥א הִכִּרֻֽהוּ:
Now Joseph recognized, etc.: Because he had left them [when they were already] full-bearded. — [from Yeb. 88a, Keth. 27b, B.M. 39b, Gen. Rabbah 91:7, Targum Jonathan]
ויכר יוסף וגו': לפי שהניחם חתומי זקן:
but they did not recognize him: Because when he left them, he was not full-bearded, and now they found him full-bearded. The Aggadic Midrash states:“And Joseph recognized his brothers” -when they were delivered into his hands, he recognized that they were his brothers, and he had compassion on them. But they did not recognize him when he fell into their hands, to behave toward him with brotherhood. — [from Yeb. 88a, Keth. 27b, B.M. 39b, Gen. Rabbah 91:7, Targum Jonathan]
והם לא הכרהו: שיצא מאצלם בלא חתימת זקן, ועכשיו בא בחתימת זקן. ומדרש אגדה ויכר יוסף את אחיו כשנמסרו בידו הכיר שהם אחיו ורחם עליהם, והם לא הכירוהו כשנפל בידם לנהוג בו אחוה:
9And Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed about them, and he said to them, "You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land." טוַיִּזְכֹּ֣ר יוֹסֵ֔ף אֵ֚ת הַֽחֲלֹמ֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָלַ֖ם לָהֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ מְרַגְּלִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לִרְא֛וֹת אֶת־עֶרְוַ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ בָּאתֶֽם:
that he had dreamed about them: Heb. לָהֶם, lit., to them, [but here it means] about them (Targum Jonathan). He knew that they (his dreams) had been fulfilled, for they (his brothers) had prostrated themselves to him. — [from Zohar, vol. 1, p. 199b]
אשר חלם להם: עליהם, וידע שנתקיימו, שהרי השתחוו לו:
the nakedness of the land: Heb. עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ, the exposure of the land, from where it can be easily conquered, similar to“he exposed (הֶעֱרָה) her fountain” (Lev. 20:18), and like“naked and bare (וְעֶרְיָה)” (Ezek. 16:7), and likewise, every [expression of] עֶרְוָה in the Scriptures is an expression of exposure. Onkelos, [however,] rendered: בִּדְקָא דְּאַרְעָא, as equivalent to הַבָּיִת בֶּדֶק (II Kings 12:6),“ the weakness of the house,” but he was not precise in explaining it according to the language of the verse.
ערות הארץ: גלוי הארץ, מהיכן היא נוחה ליכבש, כמו (ויקרא כ יח) את מקורה הערה, וכמו (יחזקאל טז ז) ערום ועריה. וכן כל ערוה שבמקרא לשון גילוי. ותרגום אונקלוס בדקא דארעא, כמו (מלכים ב' יב ו) בדק הבית, רעוע הבית, אבל לא דקדק לפרשו אחר לשון המקרא:
10And they said to him, "No, my master, your servants have come to buy food. יוַיֹּֽאמְר֥וּ אֵלָ֖יו לֹ֣א אֲדֹנִ֑י וַֽעֲבָדֶ֥יךָ בָּ֖אוּ לִשְׁבָּר־אֹֽכֶל:
No, my master: Do not say that, but your servants have come to buy food.
לא א-דני: לא תאמר כן, שהרי עבדיך באו לשבר אוכל:
11We are all sons of one man. We are honest. Your servants were never spies." יאכֻּלָּ֕נוּ בְּנֵ֥י אִֽישׁ־אֶחָ֖ד נָ֑חְנוּ כֵּנִ֣ים אֲנַ֔חְנוּ לֹֽא־הָי֥וּ עֲבָדֶ֖יךָ מְרַגְּלִֽים:
We are all sons of one man: The Holy Spirit flickered within them, and they included him with them, for he too was the son of their father. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:7]
כלנו בני איש אחד נחנו: נצנצה בהם רוח הקדש וכללוהו עמהם שאף הוא בן אביהם:
honest: Heb. כֵּנִים, truthful, like“You have spoken truthfully (כֵּן)” (Exod. 10: 29);“the daughters of Zelophehad speak truthfully (כֵּן)” (Num. 27:7);“[their haughtiness] and their conception are improper (לֹא כֵן) , [as are] their branches” (Isa. 16:6). - [from Targum Onkelos]
כנים: אמתיים, כמו (שמות י כט) כן דברת, (במדבר כז ז) כן בנות צלפחד דוברות, (ישעיה טז ו) ועברתו לא כן בדיו:
12But he said to them, "No! But you have come to see the nakedness of the land." יבוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם לֹ֕א כִּֽי־עֶרְוַ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ בָּאתֶ֥ם לִרְאֽוֹת:
But you have come to see the nakedness of the land: For you have entered by way of the ten gates of the city. Why did you not enter [together] through one gate?- [from Gen. Rabbah 91:7; Tan. Buber, Mikeitz 17]
כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות: שהרי נכנסתם בעשרה שערי העיר, למה לא נכנסתם בשער אחד:
13And they said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan, and behold, the youngest is with our father today, and one is gone." יגוַיֹּֽאמְר֗וּ שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂר֩ עֲבָדֶ֨יךָ אַחִ֧ים | אֲנַ֛חְנוּ בְּנֵ֥י אִֽישׁ־אֶחָ֖ד בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וְהִנֵּ֨ה הַקָּטֹ֤ן אֶת־אָבִ֨ינוּ֙ הַיּ֔וֹם וְהָֽאֶחָ֖ד אֵינֶֽנּוּ:
And they said, “We, your servants…”: And for that one who is gone, we scattered in the city to seek him. — [from Tan. Buber, Mikeitz 17]
ויאמרו שנים עשר עבדיך וגו': ובשביל אותו אחד שאיננו נתפזרנו בעיר לבקשו:
14And Joseph said to them, "This is just what I have spoken to you, saying, 'You are spies.' ידוַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֖ם יוֹסֵ֑ף ה֗וּא אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבַּ֧רְתִּי אֲלֵכֶ֛ם לֵאמֹ֖ר מְרַגְּלִ֥ים אַתֶּֽם:
This is just what I have spoken: The thing that I have spoken, namely, that you are spies, is true and correct. This is according to its simple interpretation. Its midrashic interpretation is, however: He said to them, “And if you find him (Joseph), and they (his owners) demand a large ransom from you, will you ransom him?” “Yes,” they replied. He said to them, “And if they say that they will not return him for any money, what will you do?” They said, “For this we have come, to kill or be killed.” He said to them,“That is [exactly] what I said to you; you have come to slay the people of the city. I divine with my cup that two of you destroyed the large city of Shechem.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 91:7, Tan. Mikeitz 8]
הוא אשר דברתי: הדבר אשר דברתי שאתם מרגלים הוא האמת והנכון, זהו לפי פשוטו. ומדרשו אמר להם ואלו מצאתם אותו ויפסקו עליכם ממון הרבה תפדוהו. אמרו לו הן. אמר להם ואם יאמרו לכם שלא יחזירוהו בשום ממון מה תעשו. אמרו לו לכך באנו, להרוג או ליהרג, אמר להם הוא אשר דברתי אליכם להרוג בני העיר באתם, מנחש אני בגביע שלי ששנים מכם החריבו כרך גדול של שכם:
15With this you shall be tested: By Pharaoh's life, you shall not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here. טובְּזֹ֖את תִּבָּחֵ֑נוּ חֵ֤י פַרְעֹה֙ אִם־תֵּֽצְא֣וּ מִזֶּ֔ה כִּ֧י אִם־בְּב֛וֹא אֲחִיכֶ֥ם הַקָּטֹ֖ן הֵֽנָּה:
By Pharaoh’s life: If Pharaoh will live. When he swore falsely, he swore by Pharaoh’s life. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:7, Tan. Buber, Mikeitz 17]
חי פרעה: אם יחיה פרעה. שהיה נשבע לשקר, היה נשבע בחיי פרעה:
you shall not leave this place: Heb. מִזֶה, lit., from this, from this place. — [from Targum Onkelos]
אם תצאו מזה: מן המקום הזה:
16Send one of you and let him fetch your brother, and you will be imprisoned so that your words will be tested whether truth is with you, and if not, as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!" טזשִׁלְח֨וּ מִכֶּ֣ם אֶחָד֘ וְיִקַּ֣ח אֶת־אֲחִיכֶם֒ וְאַתֶּם֙ הֵאָ֣סְר֔וּ וְיִבָּֽחֲנוּ֙ דִּבְרֵיכֶ֔ם הַֽאֱמֶ֖ת אִתְּכֶ֑ם וְאִם־לֹ֕א חֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֔ה כִּ֥י מְרַגְּלִ֖ים אַתֶּֽם:
whether truth is with you: Heb. הַאמֶת, if the truth is with you. The “hey” is vowelized with a“pattach,” which is equivalent to an expression of wonderment. — [from Targum Onkelos]. And if you do not bring him, [I swear] by Pharaoh’s life, that you are spies.
האמת אתכם: אם אמת אתכם. לפיכך ה"א נקוד פתח שהוא כמו בלשון תימה. ואם לא תביאוהו, חי פרעה כי מרגלים אתם:
17And he put them in prison for three days. יזוַיֶּֽאֱסֹ֥ף אֹתָ֛ם אֶל־מִשְׁמָ֖ר שְׁל֥שֶׁת יָמִֽים:
prison: Heb. מִשְׁמָר, lit., watch, [meaning] the prison. — [from Targum Onkelos]
משמר: בית האסורים:
18On the third day, Joseph said to them: "Do this and live I fear God. יחוַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֤ם יוֹסֵף֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י זֹ֥את עֲשׂ֖וּ וִֽחְי֑וּ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא:
Tehillim: Psalm Chapter 119, Verses 1-96
• Hebrew text
• English text
Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord.
2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts.
3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways.
4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently.
5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes.
6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments.
7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me
9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word.
10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments.
11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You.
12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.
13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.
14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches.
15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways.
16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word.
18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah.
19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.
20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment.
21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments.
22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies.
23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes.
24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors.
25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word.
26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders.
28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word.
29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah.
30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me.
31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame.
32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart.
33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last.
34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart.
35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed.
37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life.
38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You.
39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good.
40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness.
41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised.
42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word.
43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments.
44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever.
45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts.
46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed.
47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love.
48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes.
49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.
50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.
51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.
52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.
53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.
54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.
55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.
57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.
58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.
59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.
60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.
62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.
63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.
64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.
65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.
66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.
67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.
68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.
69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.
70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.
71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes.
72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word.
75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me.
76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant.
77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight.
78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts.
79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies.
80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed.
81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word.
82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?”
83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes.
84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers?
85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah.
86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me!
87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth.
89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants.
92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me.
94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies.
96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 3
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Wednesday, Kislev 25, 5778 · December 13, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 3
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
| |||
| |||
והנה כל בחינה ומדריגה משלש אלו, נפש רוח ונשמה, כלולה מעשר בחינות
Now, each of these three distinctions and grades — Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah — consists of ten faculties1
כנגד עשר ספירות עליונות שנשתלשלו מהן
corresponding to the Ten Supernal Sefirot (divine manifestations,2 in which they originate and whence they descend.
הנחלקות לשתים
The Ten Sefirot are subdivided into two general categories.
שהן שלש אמות ושבע כפולות
These two categories are: three “mothers”, i.e., three of these Sefirot are termed “mothers” for they are the source and root of the other seven Sefirot, as a mother is the source of her offspring, and seven “doubles” —the seven divine attributes, called “doubles” inasmuch as each of the emotional attributes manifests itself in a twofold manner, as shall presently be explained.
פירוש: חכמה בינה ודעת, ושבעת ימי הבנין: חסד גבורה תפארת כו׳
Namely: Chochmah (“wisdom”), Binah (“understanding”) and Daat (“knowledge”) are called “mothers”;and the seven “doubles” are [the emotional attributes known as] the “seven days of Creation”:Chesed (“kindness”), Gevurah (“severity”), Tiferet (“beauty”), and so on, the other four being: Netzach(“endurance”), Hod (“splendor”), Yesod (“foundation”), and Malchut (“royalty”).
These seven attributes are known as the “seven days of Creation,” for it was through these seven attributes that G-d created the world. Each day’s creation came about through a particular attribute: during the first dayChesed was dominant, the second day Gevurah, and so on.
וכך בנפש האדם שנחלקת לשתים — שכל ומדות
Just as the Ten Supernal Sefirot are divided into two general categories, so, too, with the human soul [and its ten faculties]; they are divided into two general categories: seichel (“intellect”) and middot(“emotional attributes”).
השכל כולל חכמה בינה ודעת, והמדות הן אהבת ה׳ ופחדו ויראתו ולפארו כו׳
The [category of] intellect includes the three all-inclusive intellectual powers Chochmah, Binah andDaat (ChaBaD), whilst the middot, which bear the same names as their corresponding seven Sefirot: Chesed, Gevurah, etc., represent the following emotions: love of G-d, dread and awe of Him, glorification of Him, and so forth.
Love corresponds to Chesed (“kindness”), as they are, respectively, the internal (i.e., emotional) and external (i.e., practical) aspects of the same trait; the dread and awe of G-d correspond to Gevurah, as they are its inner aspect; so too the glorification of Him corresponds to Tiferet.
וחב״ד נקראו אמות ומקור למדות כי המדות הן תולדות חב״ד
ChaBaD (the intellectual faculties) are called the “mothers” and source of the middot, for themiddot are “offspring” of (i.e., derive from) ChaBaD.
At this point it would be worthwhile to explain briefly the function of the faculties Chochmah, Binah andDaat (abbreviated as ChaBaD), mentioned frequently in the coming chapters.
Chochmah is the first flash of intellect. It is the seminal and inner point of an idea. This seminal point of intellect already includes within it all the details and ramifications of the idea, but as yet they are concentrated and obscured. (This is analogous to a dot, in which the dimensions of length and breadth are not evident — all that is seen is the dot — although for the dot to exist it must certainly contain length and breadth.)
Chochmah is also called barak hamavrik — the intuitive flash of illumination which is the beginning of intellectual revelation. For instance, we may observe how a person striving to answer an intellectual question suddenly realizes in a flash of intuition that the question can be answered along a particular line of reasoning. At the moment of illumination he is as yet unaware exactly how the particular question is answered: he knows only that he has found an adequate solution to the problem.
Thereafter the faculty of Binah (“understanding”) comes into play. Through cogitation, Binah apprehends, crystallizes and clarifies the details of the idea which were obscured in Chochmah, until the whole edifice of the idea, in all its length and breadth, becomes manifest. For this reason the function of Binah is described as meivin davar mitoch davar — “to understand (or deduce) one matter out of another” — i.e., that which was previously concentrated in the obscure intuitive flash of Chochmah is now revealed and understood.
After the person fully understands the idea with all its details and ramifications, he must then immerse himself in it, binding and unifying himself with it to the extent that he not only understands it but also feels it. Only in this way can he be affected by the idea; if his understanding points to the desirability of a particular thing, it will give birth to a love for it; if his understanding indicates instead the harmfulness of a particular thing, he will react with a feeling of fear and flee from it; and similarly with other emotions. The faculty with which one thus immerses himself in an idea is called Daat (“knowledge”), which is etymologically related to the expression,3 “and Adam knew (ידע) Eve,” a verb which denotes attachment and union. We now return to the text:
וביאור הענין: כי הנה השכל שבנפש המשכלת, שהוא המשכיל כל דבר
The explanation of the matter (i.e., of the three intellectual processes described above — inspiration, cogitation, and contemplation) is as follows: that intellectual faculty of the rational soul that firstconceives any matter (i.e., the faculty which produces the seminal point of an idea and the first flash of illumination, as explained above)
נקרא בשם חכמה — כ״ח מ״ה
is given the appellation of Chochmah [which is composed of the two words] כח מה — the potential of “what is.”4
It is a faculty concerning which one can only pose the question “Mah?” (“What is it?”) — for at this stage the idea in question is not yet clear or comprehensible logically, since its details are still in potentia, emerging only at a later stage.
וכשמוציא כחו אל הפועל, שמתבונן בשכלו להבין דבר לאשורו
When one brings forth this concentrated idea from the potential into the actual, that is, when one cogitates with his intellect on the seminal point in order to understand a matter full well —
That is: when he ponders all the details which make up the totality of the particular idea in its length and breadth. “Length” involves the range of an idea; when one draws down a concept from a lofty level to a lower one (by way of a parable, for example) in order to make it more readily understood, he is “lengthening” it, giving it a greater range of accessibility, so that it will be more readily intelligible to a student. For a student whose capacity is more limited, one parable may not suffice; it may be necessary to provide a second parable to explain the first, thereby “lengthening” the concept still further downward. (As Scripture writes concerning King Solomon:5 “He spoke three thousand parables.” So great was Solomon’s wisdom that to explain one of his thoughts he had to give three thousand parables; one parable to explain the basic concept, a second parable to explain the first parable, and so forth, until ultimately giving three thousand parables — an extreme example of the “length” of an idea.)
The “breadth” of an idea means the multitude of details which the concept comprises, as well as all its ramifications. For example, the logic behind a halachic ruling in the laws of kashrut may also apply to laws governing financial disputes.
This is the meaning of the word לאשורו (“full well”) — understanding the intellectual concept completely, in both its length and breadth.
ולעמקו
[Thus, when one cogitates on a concept in its length and breadth] and delves to its very depths
מתוך איזה דבר חכמה המושכל בשכלו
as it evolves from the concept which he had conceived in his intellect (i.e., when he apprehends in a detailed manner the seminal point of intellect, which prior to his cogitation was but a nebulous point ofChochmah),
נקרא בינה
this is called Binah. (Binah is that faculty which elucidates the details of any concept and apprehends it “full well” and “in depth.”)
והן הם אב ואם המולידות אהבת ה׳ ויראתו ופחדו
They (Chochmah and Binah) are the very “father” and “mother” which give birth to love of G-d, and awe (yirah) and dread (pachad) of Him.6
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Elsewhere (e.g., Likutei Torah, Bamidbar 1a, 51b; Shir HaShirim 16d) the Alter Rebbe makes it clear that the soul does not “consist” of the ten faculties, but rather manifests itself through them, since the soul itself is essentially indefinable and indivisible. |
| 2. | The Ten Sefirot are more fully discussed in Iggeret HaKodesh (Tanya, Part IV), ch. 15 and elsewhere. |
| 3. | Bereishit 4:1. |
| 4. | Zohar III, 28a; 34a. |
| 5. | I Melachim 5:12. |
| 6. | Yirah means an awe which is felt for the most part intellectually. Pachad denotes a dread which is felt emotionally, in one’s heart. This is why at the beginning of the chapter, where the emotions are enumerated and explained in a general way, pachad precedes yirah, for pachad — the feeling of dread in one’s heart — is a truer emotion that the intellectual yirah. Here, however, when dealing with the emotions as they are born from the intellect, yirah precedes pachad, for only after the emotion is first formed in the mind, at which stage it is yirah,does it then descend to the heart, as pachad. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
Wednesday, Kislev 25, 5778 · December 13, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
| |||
| |||
Positive Commandment 222Divorce
"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.
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 A Day: Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter One
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassTefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter One
Introduction to Hilchos Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah
They contain five positive commands, which are:
1) For tefillin [to be placed] on our heads;
2) To tie [tefillin] on our arms;
3) To affix a mezuzah at the entrances to our gates;
4) For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself;
5) For a king to write a second scroll for himself so that he will have two Torah scrolls.
The explanation of these mitzvot is contained in the following chapters.
הלכות תפילין - הקדמה
הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה יש בכללן חמש מצות עשה וזהו פרטן:
(א) להיות תפילין על הראש
(ב) לקשרם על היד
(ג) לקבוע מזוזה בפתחי השערים
(ד) לכתוב כל איש ספר תורה לעצמו
(ה) לכתוב המלך ספר שני לעצמו כדי שיהיו לו שני ספרי תורה
וביאור כל מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1
Four passages [of the Torah]: Kadesh Li and V'hayah ki y'viacha Ado-nai in the book of Exodus (13:1-10 and 13:11-16) and Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21) should be written separately and covered with leather. They are called tefillin.
They are placed on the head and tied on the arm. According to Torah law, even a mere point of one of the letters from these four passages prevents all of them from being acceptable. All four must be written in the proper manner.
א
ארבע פרשיות אלו שהן קדש לי והיה כי יביאך יי' שבספר ואלה שמות ושמע והיה אם שמוע הן שנכתבות בפני עצמן ומחפין אותן בעור ונקראין תפילין ומניחין אותן על הראש וקושרין אותן על היד ואפילו קוצו של אות אחת מארבע פרשיות אלו מעכב את כולן מן התורה עד שיהיו נכתבות שלימות כתיקונן:
Commentary on Halachah 1
2
Similarly, if even one letter of the two passages contained in the mezuzah, Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21), is lacking a point, it is not acceptable according to Torah law, which requires that they [each] be written in a perfect manner. Similarly, a Torah scroll which is lacking even one letter is unacceptable.
ב
וכן שתי פרשיות שבמזוזה שהן שמע והיה אם שמוע אפי' אות אחת משתי הפרשיות אם חסר קוצו מעכב מן התורה עד שיהיו שתיהן נכתבות שלימות וכן ספר תורה שחיסר אפילו אות אחת פסול:
Commentary on Halachah 2
3
There are ten requirements for tefillin. All of them are halachot transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is necessary to fulfill them all. Therefore, if one made any changes with regard to them, the tefillin are not fit for use: Two of them involve their composition, and eight involve the coverings [placed around the passages] and the tying of their straps.
These are the two that involve their composition:
a) They must be written in ink;
b) They must be written on parchment.
ג
עשרה דברים יש בתפילין כולן הלכה למשה מסיני וכולן מעכבין לפיכך אם שינה באחת מהן הרי התפילין פסולות שנים הן בכתיבתן ושמנה בחפויין וקשירת רצועותיהן ואלו הן השנים שבכתיבתן: שכותבין אותן בדיו ושיהיו נכתבין על הקלף:
Commentary on Halachah 3
4
How is ink prepared? 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.
This is the ink with which it is most preferable to write scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. If, however, one wrote any of the three with gallnut juice or vitriol, which remains without being rubbed out, it is acceptable.
ד
כיצד מעשה הדיו מקבצין העשן של שמנים או של זפת ושל שעוה וכיוצא בהן וגובלין אותן בשרף האילן ובמעט דבש ולותתין אותו הרבה ודכין אותו עד שיעשה רקיקין ומיבשין אותו ומצניעין אותו ובשעת כתיבה שורהו במי עפצים וכיוצא בו וכותב בו שאם תמחקנו יהיה נמחק וזהו הדיו שמצוה מן המובחר לכתוב בו ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ואם כתב שלשתן במי עפצא וקנקנתום שהוא עומד ואינו נמחק כשרים:
Commentary on Halachah 4
5
If so, what was excluded by the halachah conveyed to Moses on Mount Sinai, which stated that it be written in ink?
It excludes tints of other colors, such as red, green, and the like. If even one letter of a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzot is in another tint or in gold, they are invalid.
ה
אם כן מה מיעטה ההלכה שנאמר למשה מסיני שיהיו כתובים בדיו למעט שאר מיני צבעונין כגון האדום והירוק וכיוצא בהן שאם כתב בספרים או בתפילין או במזוזות אפילו אות אחת בשאר מיני צבעונין או בזהב הרי אלו פסולין:
Commentary on Halachah 5
6
There are three types of parchment: g'vil, k'laf, and duchsustos.
What is implied? The hide of a domesticated or wild animal is taken. First, the hair is removed from it. Afterwards, it is salted and then prepared with flour. Then resin and other substances which cause the skin to contract and become harder are applied to it. In this state, it is called g'vil.
ו
שלש עורות הן:
גויל וקלף ודוכסוסטוס כיצד לוקחין עור בהמה או חיה ומעבירין השער ממנו תחלה ואח"כ מולחין אותו במלח ואח"כ מעבדין אותו בקמח ואחר כך בעפצא וכיוצא בו מדברים שמכווצין את העור ומחזקין אותו וזה הוא הנקרא גויל:
Commentary on Halachah 6
7
After the hair is removed, the hide may be taken and divided in half in the manner known to the parchment processors. Thus, there are two pieces of parchment: a thin one, which is on the side where the hair grew, and a thicker one, on the side of the flesh.
After it has been processed using salt, then flour, and then resin and the like, the portion on the side where the hair grew is called k'laf and the portion on the side of the flesh is called duchsustos.
ז
ואם לקחו העור אחר שהעבירו שערו וחילקו אותו בעביו לשנים כמו שהעבדנין עושין עד שיהיו שני עורות אחד דק הוא שממול השיער ואחד עבה והוא שממול הבשר ועבדו אותו במלח ואחר כך בקמח ואחר כך בעפצא וכיוצא בו זה החלק שממול השיער נקרא קלף וזה שממול הבשר נקרא דוכסוסטוס:
Commentary on Halachah 7
8
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll should be written on g'vil on the side on which the hair had grown. When tefillin are written on k'laf, they should be written on the side of the flesh. When a mezuzah is written onduchsustos, it should be written on the side of the hair.
Whenever one writes on k'laf on the side of the hair or on g'vil or duchsustos on the side of the flesh, it is unacceptable.
ח
הלכה למשה מסיני שיהיו כותבין ספר תורה על הגויל וכותבין במקום השיער ושיהיו כותבין התפילין על הקלף וכותבין במקום הבשר ושיהיו כותבין המזוזה על דוכסוסטוס וכותבין במקום השיער וכל הכותב על הקלף במקום שיער או שכתב בגויל ובדוכסוסטוס במקום בשר פסול:
Commentary on Halachah 8
9
Although it is a halachah which was transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai, that if one wrote a Torah scroll on k'laf, it is acceptable. G'vil was mentioned only to exclude duchsustos. If a Torah scroll was written on the latter, it is not acceptable.
Similarly, if a mezuzah was written on k'laf or on g'vil, it is acceptable. Duchsustos was mentioned only as a mitzvah.
ט
אף על פי שכך היא הלכה למשה מסיני אם כתב ספר תורה על הקלף כשר ולא נאמר גויל אלא למעט דוכסוסטוס שאם כתב עליו הספר פסול וכן אם כתב את המזוזה על הקלף או על הגויל כשר לא אמרו על דוכסוסטוס אלא למצוה:
Commentary on Halachah 9
10
[Torah] scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot may not be written on hide from a non-kosher animal, fowl, or wild animal. One may write on the hides of [all] kosher animals, wild beasts, and fowl. This applies even when these animals died without being ritually slaughtered or when they were killed by wild beasts.
We may not write on the skin of a kosher fish because of the foul secretions, since the processing of the skin will not cause the foul secretions to cease.
י
אין כותבין ספרים תפילין ומזוזות על גבי עור בהמה טמאה ועוף וחיה הטמאים אבל כותבין על גבי עור בהמה וחיה ועוף טהורים ואפילו נבלות וטריפות שלהן ואין כותבין על גבי עור הדג הטהור מפני הזוהמא שאין הזוהמא פוסקת בעיבודה:
Commentary on Halachah 10
11
The g'vil for a Torah scroll and the k'laf for tefillin and for a Torah scroll must be processed with this purpose in mind. If they were not processed with this intent, they are not acceptable.
Accordingly, if they were processed by a gentile, they are not acceptable. Even when [a Jew] instructed a gentile to process the parchment with the intent that it be used for a Torah scroll or for tefillin, it is not acceptable. The gentile follows his own intentions and not those of the person who hires him. Therefore, whenever an article must be made with a specific intent in mind, it is unacceptable if made by a gentile.
[The parchment used for] a mezuzah need not be processed with this purpose in mind.
יא
גויל של ספר תורה וקלף של תפילין או של ספר תורה צריך לעבד אותן לשמן ואם עבדן שלא לשמן פסולין לפיכך אם עבדן הכותי פסולין אע"פשאמרנו לו לכותי לעבד עור זה לשם הספר או לשם התפילין פסולין שהכותי על דעת עצמו הוא עושה לא על דעת השוכר אותו לפיכך כל דבר שצריך מעשה לשמו אם עשהו הכותי פסול ומזוזה אינה צריכה העבדה לשמה:
Commentary on Halachah 11
12
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll or mezuzah should be written only [on parchment] which has been ruled. [The parchment used for] tefillin, however, need not be ruled, because they are covered.
It is permissible to write tefillin and mezuzot without [looking at] an existent text, because everyone is familiar with these passages. It is, however, forbidden to write even one letter of a Torah scroll without [looking at] an existent text.
יב
הלכה למשה מסיני שאין כותבין ספר תורה ולא מזוזה אלא בשרטוט אבל תפילין אינן צריכין שרטוט לפי שהן מחופין ומותר לכתוב תפילין ומזוזה שלא מן הכתב שהכל גורסין פרשיות אלו אבל ספר תורה אסור לכתוב אפילו אות אחת שלא מן הכתב:
Commentary on Halachah 12
13
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah written by an apikoros should be burned. If they were written by a gentile, an apostate Jew, a person who betrays [the Jews] to a powerful person, a slave, a woman, or a minor, they are not acceptable and must be entombed, as [implied by Deuteronomy 6:8-9]: "And you shall tie... and you shall write." [Our Sages explain that this includes only] those who are commanded to tie [tefillin on their arms] and those who believe in what they write.
[Sacred articles] which are found in the possession of an apikoros, and it is not known who wrote them, should be entombed. Those which are found in the possession of a gentile are kosher. We should not, however, purchase Torah scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot from gentiles for more than they are worth, so that they do not become accustomed to stealing them.
יג
ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות שכתבן אפיקורוס ישרפו כתבן כותי או ישראל מומר או מוסר ביד אנס או עבד או אשה או קטן הרי אלו פסולין ויגנזו שנאמר וקשרתם וכתבתם כל שמוזהר על הקשירה ומאמין בה הוא שכותב נמצאו ביד אפיקורוס ואינו יודע מי כתבן יגנזו נמצאו ביד כותי כשרים ואין לוקחין ספרים תפילין ומזוזות מן הכותים ביותר על דמיהם שלא להרגיל אותן לגונבן ולגוזלן:
Commentary on Halachah 13
14
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah that was written on parchment from a non-kosher animal, beast, or fowl, or on parchment that was not processed [properly, is not acceptable]. [Similarly,] a Torah scroll or tefillin that was written on parchment that was not processed with the intent to use it for these sacred purposes is not acceptable.
יד
ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות שכתבן על גבי עור בהמה חיה ועוף הטמאין או על גבי עורות שאינם מעובדין או שכתב ספר תורה ותפילין על עור שלא עבדן לשמן הרי אלו פסולין:
Commentary on Halachah 14
15
When a person writes a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah without having [the proper] intention, should he write one of God's names without the desired intent, they are not acceptable.
Therefore, when a person is writing God's name, he should not reply even if the king of Israel greets him. If he is writing two or three names, he may interrupt between them and reply.
טו
הכותב ספר תורה או תפילין או מזוזה ובשעת כתיבה לא היתה לו כוונה וכתב אזכרה מן האזכרות שבהן שלא לשמן פסולין לפיכך הכותב את השם אפילו מלך ישראל שואל בשלומו לא ישיבנו היה כותב שנים או שלשה שמות הרי זה מפסיק ביניהם ומשיב:
Commentary on Halachah 15
16
[When a scribe] dips his pen [in ink] to write God's name, he should not begin [writing] one of the letters of God's name. Rather, he should begin with the letter preceding [God's name].
If [a scribe] forgot to write God's name in its entirety, he may insert it in between the lines. It is, however, unacceptable to have a portion of God's name on the line and a portion inserted [between the lines]. With regard to other words, if one forgets, one may write half the word on the line and half above the line.
When does the above apply? With regard to a Torah scroll. In contrast, with regard to tefillin and mezuzot, one should not insert even one letter [between the lines]. Rather, if one forgets even one letter, one should entomb what one has written and write another one.
It is permitted to write God's name on [parchment where letters] have been scraped off or rubbed out on all [of these sacred articles].
טז
הטובל את הקולמוס לכתוב את השם לא יתחיל מאות השם אבל מתחיל הוא מאות שלפניו שכח לכתוב את השם כולו תולה אותו בין השטות אבל מקצת השם בשטה ומקצתו תלוי פסול ובשאר התיבות אם שכח כותב מקצת התיבה בשטה ומקצתה למעלה במה דברים אמורים בספר תורה אבל במזוזה ותפילין אין תולין בהן אפילו אות אחת אלא אם שכח אילו אות אחת גונז מה שכתב וכותב אחרת ומותר לכתוב את השם על מקום הגרד ועל מקום המחק בכולן:
Commentary on Halachah 16
17
Scribes who write Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot may not turn the parchment face down. Rather, they should spread a cloth over them or fold them.
יז
כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות אסור להם להפך היריעה על פניה אלא פורש עליה בגד או כופלה:
Commentary on Halachah 17
18
[The following rule applies when] a scribe who wrote a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah states: "I did not write the names of God with the proper intent." Once they have left his hand, his statements are not believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll. They are, however, accepted to the extent that he must forfeit his entire wage.
Why isn't he believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll? Because it is possible that he wanted to cause a loss to the purchaser or to the person who hired him, thinking that with this statement all that he would be required to forfeit would be the payment for the names of God.
Accordingly, were he to say that the parchment of this Torah scroll or tefillin was not processed with the proper intent in mind, his statements are accepted with regard to the disqualification of the sacred articles because, [by virtue of these statements,] he forfeits his entire wage. Everyone knows that if the parchments were not processed with the proper intent, he does not deserve any payment.
יח
ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזה שאמר הסופר אחר שיצאו מתחת ידו לא כתבתי האזכרות שבהן לשמן אינו נאמן לפסלן אבל נאמן הוא להפסיד כל שכרו ולמה אינו נאמן לפסלן שמא לא נתכוון אלא להפסיד על הלוקח או על זה ששכרו ודומה שאינו מפסיד באמירה זו אלא שכר האזכרות לפיכך אם אמר ספר תורה זה או תפילין אלו עורות שלהן אינם מעובדות לשמן מתוך שנאמן להפסיד שכרו נאמן לפסלן שהרי הכל יודעים שאם אין העורות מעובדים לשמן אין שכר לו כלל:
Commentary on Halachah 18
19
Tefillin and mezuzot may be written only in Assyrian script. Permission was granted to write Torah scrolls in Greek as well. That Greek language has, however, been forgotten from the world. It has been confused and has sunk into oblivion. Therefore, at present, all three sacred articles may be written using Assyrian script alone.
One must be precise while writing them, making sure that one letter does not become attached to another one, because any letter which is not surrounded by parchment on all four sides is unacceptable.
Any letter that cannot be read by a child who is neither wise nor foolish is not acceptable. Therefore, one must be careful with regard to the form of the letters, so that a yud will not resemble a vav, nor a vav a yud; a kaf should not resemble a beit, nor a beit a kaf; a dalet should not resemble a resh, nor a resh a dalet.
[The same applies in] other similar instances. [The text must be written in a manner] that a reader will be able to read without difficulty.
יט
אין כותבין תפילין ומזוזה אלא בכתב אשורית והתירו בספרים לכתוב אף ביוני בלבד וכבר נשקע יוני מן העולם ונשתבש ואבד לפיכך אין כותבין היום שלשתן אלא אשורית וצריך להזהר בכתיבתן כדי שלא תדבק אות באות שכל אות שאין העור מקיף לה מארבע רוחותיה פסול וכל אות שאין התינוק שאינו לא חכם ולא סכל יכול לקרותה פסול לפיכך צריך להזהר בצורת האותיות שלא תדמה היו"ד לוא"ו ולא וא"ו ליו"ד ולא כ"ף לבי"ת ולא בי"ת לכ"ף ולא דל"ת לרי"ש ולא רי"ש לדל"ת וכן כל כיוצא בזה עד שירוץ כל הקורא בהן:
Commentary on Halachah 19
20
[The following rules apply to] parchment which has holes: One should not write over a hole. If, however, ink passes over the hole [without seeping through], the presence of the hole is of no consequence, and one may write upon it. Accordingly, if the skin of a fowl has been processed, it is permissible to write upon it.
[The following rules apply] when a parchment becomes perforated after it has been written on: If the perforation is within the inside of a letter - e.g., in the space inside a heh, inside amem, or inside any of the other letters - it is acceptable.
Despite the fact that a leg of a letter becomes perforated to the extent that it becomes separated [into two portions], it is acceptable if:
a) [the length of the leg] is equivalent to that of a small letter; and b) the letter's [present form] does not resemble another letter.
If [the length of the leg] is not equivalent to that of a small letter, it is not acceptable.
כ
עור שהיה נקוב לא יכתוב על גבי הנקב וכל נקב שהדיו עוברת עליו אינו נקב ומותר לכתוב עליו לפיכך מותר לכתוב על גבי עור העוף שנתעבד ניקב העור אחר שנכתב אם ניקב בתוך האות כגון תוך ה"א או תוך מ"ם וכן בשאר אותיות כשר ניקב בירך של אות עד שנפסקה אם נשתייר ממנה מלא אות קטנה כשר והוא שלא תדמה לאות אחרת ואם לא נשתייר ממנה מלא אות קטנה פסולה:
Commentary on Halachah 20
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter One, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Two, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassGerushin - Chapter One
Introduction to Hilchos Gerushin
[This text] contains two mitzvot: one positive commandment, that a person [who desires] to divorce [his wife] should do so [by giving her] a bill of divorce; and one negative commandment, that after a divorcee remarries, her previous husband may never remarry her. These mitzvot are explained in the chapters [that follow].
הלכות גירושין - הקדמה
יש בכללן שתי מצות. אחת מצות עשה והוא שיגרש המגרש בספר. ואחת מצות לא תעשה והיא שלא יחזיר גרושתו משנשאת: וביאור שתי מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:
1
A woman may be divorced only by receiving a bill [of divorce].1 This bill is called a get.2
The Torah establishes ten principles as fundamental [for a divorce to be effective].3 They are:4
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.
א
אין האשה מתגרשת אלא בכתב שיגיע לה וכתב זה הוא הנקרא גט. ועשרה דברים הן עיקר הגירושין מן התורה ואלו הן. שלא יגרש האיש אלא ברצונו. ושיגרש בכתב ולא בדבר אחר. ושיהיה ענין הכתב שגרשה והסירה מקניינו. ושיהיה עניינו דבר הכורת בינו לבינה. ושיהיה נכתב לשמה. ושלא יהיה מחוסר מעשה אחר כתיבתו אלא נתינתו לה [בלבד]. ושיתנהו לה. שיתנהו לה בפני עדים. ושיתנהו לה בתורת גירושין. ושיהיה הבעל או שלוחו הוא שנותנו לה. ושאר הדברים שבגט כגון הזמן וחתימת העדים וכיוצא בהן הכל מדברי סופרים:
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
ב
ומניין שעשרה דברים אלו מן התורה. שנאמר והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו וכתב לה ספר כריתות ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו. אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו. מלמד שאינו מגרש אלא ברצונו. ואם נתגרשה שלא ברצונו אינה מגורשת. אבל האשה מתגרשת ברצונה ושלא ברצונה:
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.
ג
וכתב. מלמד שאינה מתגרשת אלא בכתב. לה. לשמה. ספר כריתות. דבר הכורת בינו לבינה שלא ישאר לו עליה רשות. ואם עדיין לא נכרת בינו לבינה אינה מגורשת כמו שיתבאר. ונתן בידה. מלמד שאינה מתגרשת עד שינתן הגט בידה או ביד שלוחה שהוא כידה או לחצרה שהכל כידה כמו שיתבאר. ושלחה. שיהיה ענין הגט שהוא המשלח אותה. לא שישלח עצמו ממנה:
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 get is 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
ד
כיצד כתב לה הרי את משולחת הרי את מגורשת הרי את לעצמך הרי את מותרת לכל אדם וכיוצא בזה הענין הרי זו מגורשת. וגופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם. אבל אם כתב לה איני בעלך איני ארוסך איני אישך אין זה גט שנאמר ושלחה ולא שישלח את עצמו. וכן הכותב לאשתו הרי את בת חורין אינו גט:
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
ה
זה שנאמר בתורה ושלחה מביתו אין עניינו שלא יגמרו גירושיה עד שתצא מביתו אלא כשמגיע גט לידה גמרו גירושיה ואע"פ שעדיין היא בביתו כמו שיתבאר. שלא נאמר ושלחה אלא שאם גירש ולא הוציאה מביתו ה"ז כמי שגירש והחזיר גרושתו לפיכך צריכה ממנו גט כמו שיתבאר:
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.
ו
ומנין שלא יהיה מחוסר מעשה אחר כתיבתו שנאמר וכתב ונתן מי שאינו מחוסר אלא כתיבה ונתינה הוא הגט הכשר. יצא דבר שמחוסר קציצה אחר הכתיבה. לפיכך אם כתב גט על קרן הפרה נותן לה הפרה. ואם חתך הקרן אחר שכתבו ונתנו לה אינו גט. וכן אם כתב במחובר אע"פ שחתמו בו העדים אחר שתלשו ונתנו לה אינו גט:
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
ז
אין כותבין במחובר אפילו טופס הגט. כתב הטופס במחובר ותלשו ואחר כך כתב שם האיש ושם האשה והזמן והרי את מותרת לכל אדם וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר:
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.
ח
כתב כל הגט על העלה הזרוע בעציץ נקוב אע"פ שנתן לה העציץ כלו הגט פסול גזרה שמא יקטום. אבל כותב הוא על חרסו של עציץ ונותן לה:
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
ט
ומנין שאינו נותנו לה אלא בתורת גירושין שנאמר ספר כריתות ונתן בידה שיתן אותו בתורת ספר כריתות. אבל אם נתנו לה בתורת שהוא שטר חוב או מזוזה או שנתנו בידה והיא ישנה ונעורה והרי הוא בידה אינו גט. ואם אמר לה אח"כ הרי הוא גיטך הרי זה גט:
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
י
אמר לעדים ראו גט שאני נותן לה וחזר ואמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה הרי זה כשר. שהרי הודיע את העדים שנתנו בתורת גירושין. וזה שאמר לה שטר חוב מפני שנכלם ממנה:
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.
יא
המגרש צריך שיאמר לה כשיתן לה הגט הרי זה גיטך או הוא גיטך וכיוצא בזה. ואם נתן בידה ולא אמר כלום הרי זה גט פסול. במה דברים אמורים בשלא היה מדבר עמה על עסקי גיטה. אבל אם היה מדבר על עסקי גיטה ונטל הגט ונתן בידה ולא אמר כלום הרי זה גט כשר:
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.
If, however, he bends his body toward her,23 or tilts his hand until she takes the get from him and says,24 "Behold this is your get," the get is [effective].25
יב
גט שהיה מונח על הארץ ואמר לה טלי גיטך מעל גבי קרקע ונטלתו או שהיה קשור על ידו או על ירכו ושלפתו ממנו אע"פ שאמר לה אחר שבא לידה הרי זה גיטך אינו גט שנאמר ונתן בידה לא שתקח היא מעצמה והרי לא נתן לה לא הוא ולא שלוחו. אבל אם הרכין לה בגופו או הטה ידו עד ששלפה הגט מעליו ואמר לה הרי זה גיטך הרי זה גט:
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
יג
ומנין שיתננו לה בפני עדים. הרי הוא אומר על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יקום דבר ואי אפשר שתהיה זו היום ערוה והבא עליה במיתת בית דין ולמחר תהיה מותרת בלא עדים. לפיכך אם נתן לה גט בינו לבינה ואפילו בעד אחד אינו גט כלל:
14
When does the above apply? When the get is written by a scribe.28 When, however, the husband writes the get himself, one witness signs it,29 and [the husband] gives it to her, the get is unacceptable [only by Rabbinic decree,]30 {and the woman is forbidden to marry a priest}.31
יד
במה דברים אמורים כשהיה הגט בכתב יד סופר. אבל אם כתב הבעל הגט בכתב ידו וחתם עליו עד אחד ונתנו לה הרי זה גט פסול [ופוסל לכהונה]:
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].
טו
תקנת חכמים הוא שיהיו העדים חותמין על הגט. שמא יתן לה גט בפני שנים וימותו ונמצא הגט שבידה כחרס מחרסי אדמה שהרי אין בו עדים. לפיכך תקנו שיעידו מתוכו. ואע"פ שהעדים בתוכו נותנו לה בפני שנים בין בפני אותן העדים החתומין עליו בין בפני שנים אחרים שעיקר הגירושין בעדי מסירה:
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.34 For 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
טז
חתמו בו שנים ועבר ונתנו לה בינו לבינה או שנמצאו עדי מסירה פסולין הרי זה כשר הואיל ועדים שבו כשרין והרי הגט יוצא מתחת ידיה. ויש שהורה מן הגאונים שהוא פסול:
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
יז
היו עדיו מתוכו פסולין אפילו אחד פסול ואחד כשר ונתנו לה בפני שני עדים כשרין הרי זה פסול שנמצא כמזוייף מתוכו:
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].
יח
הרחיק את העדים מן הכתב מלא שני שיטין פסול. וכמה ירחיק את העדים מן הכתב פחות מכדי שני שיטין כדי שיהיו נקראין עמו. בד"א כשהיה הגט יוצא מתחת ידיה ולא היו שם עדי מסירה. אבל אם מסרו לה בעדים אע"פ שהן מרוחקין הרבה ואין נקראין עמו ואע"פ שאין חתום עליו עד כלל הרי זה כשר. שעיקר הגירושין בעדי מסירה:
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
יט
העדים שנותן את הגט בפניהם צריכין לקרותו ואח"כ יתננו לה. ואם נתנו לה בפניהם תחלה חוזרין וקוראין אותו אחר שנתנו לה. קראוהו והוא ביד הבעל או ביד שלוחו והחזירוהו לו. וחזר הוא והכניסו לתוך ידו ונתנו לה חוזרין וקוראין אותו:
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 get that you read," his word is not accepted and the divorce is effective.
כ
לא קראוהו אלא נטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאש הרי זו מגורשת. הואיל וקראוהו תחלה אין חוששים לו שהחליפו. ולא עוד אלא אפילו אמר הבעל שטר אחר היה ולא היה הגט שקראתם אינו נאמן והרי היא מגורשת:
21
[If, however,] they did not read the get beforehand, the husband gives it to [his wife] in their presence, and then it is thrown into a fire or into the sea, the status of the divorce is doubtful.41 [This applies] even if the husband says that it was an acceptable get.42
כא
הרי שלא קראו הגט בתחלה ונתן לה הגט בפניהם זרקתו לאור או לים אע"פ שהבעל אומר גט כשר היה הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
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
כב
זרק לה הגט לחצרה לבין החביות בפני עדים ובקשו ומצאו מזוזה או שטר אחר אין חוששין לה. שזה שנמצא הוא שזרק. נמצאו שם שתים שלש מזוזות או שטרות חוששין שמא גט שזרק גררוהו עכברים והרי זו ספק מגורשת:
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
כג
העדים שחותמין על הגט צריכים להיותם יודעים לקרות ולחתום. ואם אינם יודעים לקרות קוראים בפניהם וחותמים. והוא שיכירו לשון הגט. ואם אינם יודעים לחתום רושמין להם הנייר ברוק וכיוצא בו מדבר שאין רשומו מתקיים והן כותבין על הרושם. ואין עושין כך בשאר שטרות קל הוא שהקלו בגיטי נשים כדי שלא יהיו בנות ישראל עגונות הואיל וחתימת העדים בגט מדבריהם כמו שביארנו:
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 the get.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.
כד
אף על פי שחתימת העדים בגט מדבריהם התקינו שיהיו העדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגט. וכן התקינו בעדי הגט שאין חותמין אלא זה בפני זה. ואם חתמו זה שלא בפני זה הרי זה גט פסול. וכן התקינו חכמים שיכתוב זמן בגט ומקום כתיבתו כשאר השטרות. שמא תהיה אשתו קרובתו ותזנה כשהיא תחתיו ויכתוב לה גט אחר הזנות ויתן לה. ואם לא יהיה בו זמן יכולה לומר קודם הזנות נתגרשתי ולפיכך תקנו זמן בגיטין:
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.
כה
גט שיש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן או שהיה מוקדם או מאוחר או שנכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה שלאחריו אע"פ שעסוקין באותו הענין. או כתב את הגט בירושלים וטעה וכתב בלוד. כל אלו פסולין עד שיחתמו בו בזמן כתיבתו ובמקום כתיבתו:
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.
כו
חתך ממנו הזמן ונתנו לה או שלא כתב שם היום אלא בשבת ראשונה או שניה מחדש פלוני או בחדש פלוני או בשנה פלונית ולא הזכיר החדש אפילו כתב בשבוע פלוני כשר. וכן אם כתב בו היום גרשתיה כשר שמשמעו היום הזה שיצא בו הגט:
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.
כז
וכן תקנו שיהו מונין בגיטין למלכות אותו הזמן משום שלום מלכות. כתב לשם מלכות שאינה מלכות אותה המדינה או לבנין הבית או לחרבן הבית אם דרך אנשי אותו מקום למנות בו הרי זה כשר ואם אין דרכן למנות בו הרי זה פסול. וכבר נהגו כל ישראל למנות בגיטין או ליצירה או למלכות אלכסנדרוס מקדון שהוא מנין שטרות. ואם כתב לשם מלכות אותו זמן במדינה שיש בה רשות אותה מלכות הרי זה כשר:
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
כח
האומר לשנים כתבו וחתמו ותנו גט לאשתי ונתאחר הדבר ימים או שנים. או שנמצא הגט בטל והוצרכו לכתוב לה גט אחר כשר אחר כמה שנים כמו שיתבאר. הרי אלו כותבין זמן הכתיבה ומקום הכתיבה לא הזמן שאמר להן הבעל בו כתבו ולא אותו המקום. כיצד היו בירושלים כשאמר להן והיו עומדין בתשרי ונתאחרו עד ניסן והרי הן בלוד כותבין זמן הגט מניסן ובלוד ששם נכתב הגט כשאר שטרות:
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 the get 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'Loveh 27:5, 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 HaEzer 127:2) 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.
Gerushin - Chapter Two
1
The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 24:1], "And he will write a bill of divorce for her and place it in her hand," refers both to [a husband] who writes [the get] with his own hand and to one who tells [another person] to write it for him. Similarly, [the husband] may place it in her hand or tell an agent to give it to her.1
The verse states, "And he will write," only to teach that divorce is effective only through the medium of a written document. "And [he will] place it" teaches that the woman may not take [the get] herself.
א
זה שנאמר בתורה וכתב לה ספר כריתות ונתן בידה. אחד הכותב בידו או שאמר לאחר לכתוב לו. ואחד הנותן בידו או שאמר לאחר ליתן לה. לא נאמר וכתב אלא להודיע שאין מתגרשת אלא בכתב. ונתן שלא תקח מעצמה:
2
When [a husband] tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get, sign it, and give it to my wife," the two may write it, sign it,2 and give it to her. They are [the husband's] agents [for the divorce], and they are the witnesses [to it].3
Similarly, if [the husband] tells a scribe: "Write a get for my wife for me," and he tells the witnesses to sign, the get may be written, signed and given to [the husband]. He may use it to divorce his wife whenever he desires.4
ב
אמר לשנים כתבו גט וחתמו ותנו לאשתי הרי אלו כותבין וחותמין ונותנין לה והן הן שלוחיו והן הן עדיו. וכן אם אמר לסופר כתוב לי גט לאשתי ואמר לעדים לחתום כותבים וחותמים ונותנים לו והוא מגרש בו בכל עת שירצה:
3
We may write a get for a man even when he is not accompanied by his wife, provided the witnesses and the scribe who wrote and signed [the get] know the identity of the man and his wife.5
If there are two men in a city whose names are the same and whose wives' names are the same, one may divorce his wife only in the presence of the other. [This safeguard was enacted] lest one [of the men] have a get written and give it to the wife of the other man, causing her to [be considered] to be divorced from [her husband].6
ג
וכותבין גט לאיש אע"פ שאין אשתו עמו. והוא שיהיו העדים והסופר שכתבו וחתמו בו מכירין ויודעים שזה הוא פלוני ואשתו היא פלונית. ואם היו באותו מקום שנים ששמותיהם שוים ושמות נשותיהם שוים אין מגרש אחד מהם אלא במעמד חבירו שמא יכתוב גט ויוליכו לאשת חבירו ויאסרנה עליו:
4
In a time of danger,7 we may write a get [on behalf of a husband] and give it [to his wife], even though we are not aware of [their identities].
It is the woman who always pays the scribe's fee.8
ד
ובשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אף על פי שאין מכירים והאשה נותנת שכר הסופר בכל מקום:
5
The husband himself must tell the scribe to write [the get] and the witnesses to sign [it]. When a court of law9 or two [colleagues] ask a man: "Shall we write a get for your wife?" and he tells them to write [it and sign it],10 it is acceptable if they themselves write [the get] and sign it.
If, however, they tell a scribe [to write] and he does, and they tell witnesses [to sign] and they do, the get is void, because it was written by someone who was not told to write it by the husband himself.11 [This ruling applies] even when they give [the get] to the husband, who in turn gives it to his wife in the presence of witnesses.12
ה
וצריך שיאמר הבעל עצמו לסופר כתוב ולעדים חתומו. הרי שאמרו לו בית דין או שנים נכתוב גט לאשתך ואמר להם כתבו וכתבו הן עצמן וחתמו בו הרי זה כשר. אבל אם אמרו הם לסופר וכתב ולעדים וחתמו אף על פי שחזרו ונתנוהו לבעל וחזר ונתן גט זה לאשתו בפני עדים הרי זה גט בטל, שהרי כתבו מי שלא אמר לו הבעל לכתבו:
6
When [a man] tells two or three [colleagues]: "Tell a scribe to write a get for my wife and tell the witnesses to sign," and they convey these instructions, the get is unacceptable.13[The same ruling applies if the husband] tells two [colleagues] to tell a scribe to write a get and tells them to sign it.14
This matter should be deliberated upon at length, because the get is close to being considered void.15
ו
אמר לשנים או לשלשה אמרו לסופר ויכתוב גט לאשתי ואמרו לעדים ויחתומו ואמרו לסופר וכתב ולעדים וחתמו או שאמר לשנים אמרו לסופר ויכתוב גט לאשתי ואתם חתומו הרי זה גט פסול. ומתיישבין בדבר זה הרבה מפני שהוא קרוב להיות גט בטל:
7
What is the difference between the terms "unacceptable" (pasul) and "void" (bateil)? Whenever this text refers to a get as "void," that means that according to Scriptural law it is void. Whenever the term "unacceptable" is used, it refers to a get deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.16
ז
ומה בין פסול לבטל. שכל מקום שנאמר בחיבור זה בגט שהוא בטל הוא בטל מן התורה. ובכל מקום שנאמר פסול הוא פסול מדברי סופרים:
8
When a husband brings a get that has been signed in his hand and tells [two colleagues]: "Give this get to my wife," they should give it to her [and it is acceptable].17
If he tells others to write a get, sign it and give to his wife, and they write it, sign it and give it to her, and then it is discovered that the get is void or unacceptable, they may write another get - or even 100 other gittin - until the woman receives an acceptable get.18
ח
הבעל שהביא גט בידו חתום ואמר תנו גט זה לאשתי הרי אלו יתנו לה. אמר לאחרים לכתוב גט ולחתום בו וליתנו לאשתו וכתבו וחתמו ונתנו לה ונמצא הגט בטל או פסול הרי אלו כותבין גט אחר אפילו מאה עד שיגיע לידה גט כשר:
9
If the husband tells [two colleagues]: Write and sign [a get] and give it to an agent to bring to her, and they do as they were charged, but it was discovered that the get was void or unacceptable, they may not write another [get] until they consult the husband.
[The rationale is] that [the husband] did not charge them with [effecting the divorce]. Perhaps he wanted merely that they write [the get] and give it to the agent. [If so, their agency was completed,] and nothing remains for them to do, for they have written it and given it [to the agent]. Therefore, they should not write another [get].19
If they do write another get that is acceptable and give it to the agent - who in turn gives it to the wife - the status of the divorce is in doubt.20
ט
אמר להם הבעל כתבו וחתמו ותנו לשליח להוליך לה וכתבו וחתמו ונתנו לשליח. ונמצא הגט בטל או פסול אין כותבים אחר עד שימלכו בבעל. שהרי לא עשה אותן שלוחים לגירושין ושמא לא רצה אלא שיכתבו ויתנו לשליח בלבד ולא ישאר להם בו מעשה אחר והרי כתבו ונתנו. לפיכך לא יכתבו אחר. ואם כתבו גט אחר כשר ונתנוהו לשליח (ונתנו לה) הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
10
When a person tells two or more [colleagues]: "Write a get and give to my wife," "Divorce her," "Send her away," "Release her,"21 "Discharge her," or "Write a letter and give it to her," [the colleagues] should write an acceptable get and give it to her.
If, however, he tells them: "Dismiss her," "Give her what she needs," "Do as our faith requires to her," "Do as the law requires to her," "Do unto her as she deserves," his statements are of no consequence.22 If [these individuals] write a get and give it to the woman, the get is void.23
י
האומר לשנים או ליתר משנים כתבו גט ותנו לאשתי גרשוה שלחוה שבקוה תרכוה כתבו אגרת ותנו לה הרי אלו יכתבו גט כשר ויתנו לה. אמר להם פטרוה פרנסוה עשו לה כדת עשו לה כנימוס עשו לה כראוי לא אמר כלום. ואם כתבו גט ונתנו לה הרי זה גט בטל:
11
If he tells them: "Get her out," "Let her go," "Permit her [to remarry]," "Let her be," "Assist her," there is doubt whether or not these terms imply that she should be divorced or whether they have another meaning. Therefore, [these individuals] should not write [a get] for her. If they write a get and give it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
יא
אמר להם הוציאוה עזבוה התירוה הניחוה הועילוה הרי זה ספק אם משמע מלות אלו גרושין או ענין אחר. לפיכך אין כותבין לה ואם כתבו גט ונתנו לה הרי זו ספק מגורשת:
12
When [a man] says: "Write a get for my wife," [the people he addresses] should write the get, sign it and give it to him. They should not give it to the woman unless he tells them to. If they do give it to the woman, the get is not [effective].24
When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy man. If, however, a man is dangerously ill - i.e., he suddenly falls sick and his illness rapidly becomes very severe - or if he is being led away in chains,25 even for financial matters, or he departs on an ocean journey, or he departs with a caravan [on a desert journey] and he says, "Write a get for my wife," they should write it, sign it and give it to her. For it is clear that his intent was that they should write the get and give it to her.26
יב
האומר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו כותבין וחותמין ונותנין לבעל בידו ואין נותנין לאשתו עד שיאמר להם ליתן לה. ואם נתנו לה אינו גט. במה דברים אמורים בבריא אבל במסוכן והוא אדם שקפץ עליו החלי במהרה והכביד עליו חליו מיד והיוצא בקולר אפילו על עסקי ממון והמפרש בים והיוצא בשיירא ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויחתמו ויתנו לה. שהדבר ידוע שלא נתכוון זה אלא לכתוב וליתן לה:
13
[The following rules apply when] a healthy person says: "Compose a get for my wife," and [his listeners] write a get, sign it and give it to her. If he commits suicide immediately thereafter - e.g., he throws himself down from a roof or jumps into the sea - the get is acceptable.27
If, however, he climbs up onto a [high] roof, and he is buffeted by the wind until he falls and dies, the get is void.28 If there is doubt whether he threw himself down [from the roof] or was buffeted by the wind, the get is valid unless it becomes known with certainty that he was buffeted by the wind.29
Similarly, if a man was cast into a pit and he said, "Whoever hears my voice should write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write a get and give it to her, provided they recognize his identity.30 Even if [afterwards,] they took him out of the pit and could not identify him,31 [the divorce] is acceptable. For in time of danger, [a get] can be written and given to [a man's wife] even if they do not know his identity.
Similarly, when a person suffers many severe blows, to the extent that it is impossible to for him to survive - or even if the majority of [his windpipe and gullet]32 have been cut - and he makes motions33 and says: "Write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write [a get] and give it [to her]. Although he will eventually die, he is alive at this time.34
יג
בריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי וכתבו וחתמו ונתנו לה והרג עצמו מיד כגון שהשליך עצמו מן הגג או הפיל עצמו לים הרי זה גט כשר. עלה לגג ודחפתו הרוח ונפל ומת אינו גט. ספק הפיל עצמו ספק דחפתו הרוח הרי זה גט עד שיודע לך בודאי שהרוח דחפתו. וכן מי שהיה מושלך בבור ואמר כל השומע קולי יכתוב גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו לה. והוא שידעו אותו. ואע"פ שהעלוהו ולא הכירוהו הרי זה כשר שזה כשעת הסכנה הוא שכותבים ונותנין אע"פ שאינן מכירין. וכן מי שנפלו בו מכות רעות שא"א שיחיה מהן אפילו נשחטו בו רוב סימנין ורמז ואמר כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו שהרי עתה חי הוא אע"פ שסופו למות:
14
[The following rules apply when] a person is troubled by an evil spirit, and at the time when his infirmity begins to take hold of him says: "Write a get for my wife." His statements are of no consequence, because his thoughts are not organized and settled.35 The same ruling applies to a person who has become as drunk as Lot.36 If a drunkard has not reached that level [of incapacity], [the status of the divorce] is in doubt.37
יד
מי שהיתה רוח רעה מבעתת אותו ואמר כשהתחיל בו החלי כתבו גט לאשתי לא אמר כלום. מפני שאין דעתו נכונה ומיושבת. וכן שכור שהגיע לשכרותו של לוט. ואם לא הגיע הרי זה ספק:
15
[The following rules apply when a] healthy [man] says: "Write a get for my wife and give it to her," and afterwards he becomes mentally disturbed. We wait until he becomes healthy again, and then we write the get and give it to her. There is no need to consult with him about the matter again when he regains his heath.38
If a get is written and given before he regains his health, it is unacceptable.39
טו
אמר כשהוא בריא כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי ואח"כ נבעת ממתינין עד שיבריא וכותבין ונותנין לה. ואין צריך לחזור ולהמלך בו אחר שהבריא. ואם כתבו ונתנו קודם שיבריא הרי זה פסול:
16
[The following rules apply when] a person loses his ability to speak, but is of sound mind. We ask him: "Should we write a get for your wife?" If he nods his head affirmatively, we test him with three [questions with different answers].40 If he answers those [questions] to be answered affirmatively in the affirmative and those to be answered negatively in the negative, they should write [a get] and give it [to her]. His mental state must be checked thoroughly, lest he not be of sound mind.
Similarly, if he writes by hand: "Write a get and give it to my wife," they should write it and give it to her, if [it appears] that he is of sound mind. For the laws governing a person who loses his ability to speak differ from those governing a deaf-mute.41
טז
מי שנשתתק והרי דעתו נכונה ואמרו לו נכתוב גט לאשתך והרכין בראשו בודקין אותו שלש פעמים בסירוגין אם אמר להם על לאו לאו ועל הן הן הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו. וצריכין לבודקו יפה יפה שמא נטרפה דעתו. וכן אם כתב בידו כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי הרי אלו כותבין ונותנין לה אם היתה דעתו מיושבת עליו שאין דין מי שנשתתק כדין החרש:
17
When a person married while sound of mind and became a deaf-mute, he cannot divorce his wife until he regains his mental health.42 Needless to say, this applies to a person who loses his mental stability.43 We do not rely on the motions of a deaf-mute or on his writing, even if he is of sound mind.
If, however, a deaf-mute married a woman while he was in that state, he may divorce her by making motions, for his consecration of her is not valid according to Scriptural law, as has been explained.44 Just as he married her by making motions, he may divorce her by making motions.
יז
מי שנשא כשהוא פקח ונתחרש ואין צריך לומר נשתטה אינו מוציא לעולם עד שיבריא. ואין סומכין על רמיזת החרש ולא על כתבו אף על פי שדעתו נכונה ומיושבת עליו. אבל אם נשא אשה כשהוא חרש מגרש ברמיזה שאין קידושיו קידושין מן התורה כמו שביארנו וכשם שכונס ברמיזה כך מוציא ברמיזה:
18
When a man consecrates a minor via her father's agency and [seeks to] divorce her while she is a minor, her father should accept her get.45 When the get reaches her father's possession, she is divorced.
If [the husband seeks to] divorce [his arusah] when she is a na'arah,46 the divorce is effective when the get reaches her possession or her father's possession. A na'arah who is consecrated may not appoint an agent to receive her get from her husband during her father's lifetime.47 A father, by contrast, may appoint an agent to receive a get for his daughter who has been consecrated, whether she is a minor or a na'arah.
יח
המקדש קטנה על ידי אביה וגירשה כשהיא קטנה אביה מקבל גיטה ומשיגיע גט ליד האב נתגרשה. גירשה כשהיא נערה אם הגיע הגט לידה או ליד אביה נתגרשה. ואין עושה נערה המאורסה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד בעלה בחיי אביה. אבל האב עושה שליח לקבל הגט לבתו המאורסה בין קטנה בין נערה:
19
[The following rules apply when] a girl's father consecrates her48 when she is a minor and then [the father] dies. If [the girl] can differentiate between a get and another object,49 the divorce is effective after the get reaches her possession. If [she is] incapable [of making such a distinction], she cannot be divorced until she becomes capable of making such distinctions.50If such a divorce is carried out, it is of no consequence.
יט
קדשה אביה כשהיא קטנה ומת. אם מבחנת בין גיטה לדבר אחר הרי זו מתגרשת משיגיע הגט לידה ואם לאו אינה מתגרשת עד שתבחין ואם גירשה אינה מגורשת:
20
When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife51 does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written. The get is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places.52
Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a get] on their own initiative, the get is [merely] unacceptable.53The rationale is that the law requires him to give a divorce.
Why is this get not void? For he is being compelled - either by Jews or by gentiles - [to divorce] against his will [and a get must be given voluntarily].
Because the concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale,54 or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].55
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.
[Different laws apply when] the law does not require him to divorce his wife, and a Jewish court or simple people compel him to divorce her. This get is deemed unacceptable. Since, however, it was Jews who compelled him, he [is advised] to complete the divorce [in a proper manner]. If, by contrast, gentiles compel him to divorce when it was not required, the divorce is void. Even though he tells the gentiles that he consented and tells the Jews to write and sign [a get], since the law does not require him to divorce, and he was compelled to do so by gentiles, the get is void.
כ
מי שהדין נותן שכופין אותו לגרש את אשתו ולא רצה לגרש. בית דין של ישראל בכל מקום ובכל זמן מכין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני ויכתוב הגט והוא גט כשר. וכן אם הכוהו עכו"ם ואמרו לו עשה מה שישראל אומרין לך ולחצו אותו ישראל ביד העכו"ם עד שיגרש הרי זה כשר. ואם העכו"ם מעצמן אנסוהו עד שכתב הואיל והדין נותן שיכתוב הרי זה גט פסול. ולמה לא בטל גט זה שהרי הוא אנוס בין ביד עכו"ם בין ביד ישראל. שאין אומרין אנוס אלא למי שנלחץ ונדחק לעשות דבר שאינו מחוייב בו מן התורה כגון מי שהוכה עד שמכר או עד שנתן. אבל מי שתקפו יצרו הרע לבטל מצוה או לעשות עבירה והוכה עד שעשה דבר שחייב לעשותו או עד שנתרחק מדבר האסור לעשותו אין זה אנוס ממנו אלא הוא אנס עצמו בדעתו הרעה. לפיכך זה שאינו רוצה לגרש מאחר שהוא רוצה להיות מישראל ורוצה הוא לעשות כל המצות ולהתרחק מן העבירות ויצרו הוא שתקפו וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו ואמר רוצה אני כבר גרש לרצונו. לא היה הדין נותן שכופין אותו לגרש וטעו בית דין של ישראל או שהיו הדיוטות ואנסוהו עד שגירש הרי זה גט פסול הואיל וישראל אנסוהו יגמור ויגרש. ואם העכו"ם אנסוהו לגרש שלא כדין אינו גט. אע"פ שאמר בעכו"ם רוצה אני ואמר לישראל כתבו וחתמו הואיל ואין הדין מחייבו להוציא והעכו"ם אנסוהו אינו גט:
FOOTNOTES
1.
In most matters of Torah law, a person is able to charge an agent to act on his behalf. From the Rambam's wording, Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 228) and the Kovetz deduce that the Rambam requires that not only the person who gives the get, but also the scribe, must be appointed as agents. This decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 120:1). Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that in addition, the scribe must write the get with paper and ink belonging to the husband.
There are, however, other opinions, which maintain that the scribe need not be appointed as an agent. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 16 and notes.)
2.
There is a difficulty in this instance, for the scribe must also act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. Tosafot and many other authorities rule that a get signed by a scribe is unacceptable. In the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam agrees that a priori, the scribe should not act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. When there is no alternative, however, it is acceptable. (See Lechem Mishneh.)
3.
In this instance, the act the agent effects does not concern him. Therefore, there is no difficulty in his serving as a witness to it. (See also Hilchot Ishut 3:16.)
4.
There are two points of clarification that must be made with regard to this ruling: First, if the husband enters into privacy with his wife after having the get written, the get is nullified, for we assume that the couple engaged in sexual relations, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
Second, there is the problem that the get is predated - i.e., although it was dated on the day it was written, it is the giving of the get and not the writing of the get that effects the divorce. Thus, the date on which the get was given and the date of the divorce are not the same.
With regard to that issue, we are forced to say that the Rambam does not consider it to be problematic. Indeed, when discussing the issue of predated gittin (Chapter 1, Halachah 25), the Rambam makes no mention of this matter at all. Other authorities differ, and it is their view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5), which states that if a get is not given on the day on which it was written, it is acceptable only when given by an agent. (See Beit Shmuel 127:7.)
5.
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 24:3-4. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that there are several points to be derived from an analysis of the Rambam's choice of wording in the present halachah and in that source:
a) Even if the man is accompanied by a woman he claims to be his wife, the witnesses may not sign a get for her until this fact is established.
b) It is not significant whether or not the scribe knows the identity of the man and his wife. When the scribe does not sign the get (see the notes to the previous halachah), it is the witnesses alone who must be aware of the identity of the husband and wife.
c) As long as a person's name has been established in a city for thirty days - even if it is only according to his own statements - this is sufficient.
d) The witnesses must also know the names of the father of the husband and of the wife.
e) The person's father's name can also be established on the basis of his own statements.
6.
From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 10:3), it appears that the intent is to prevent the woman receiving the get from engineering such an act of deception.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "causing her to be forbidden to him," i.e., she will think that she has been divorced, and on that basis, she will marry another man, and thus become forbidden to her first husband.
7.
A time of danger means an instance when the husband is in danger of dying and asks to have a get written for his wife, so that she will not have to undergo the rites of either yibbum or chalitzah (Gittin 66a).
8.
Although according to Scriptural law it is the husband who should pay for the writing of the get (for it is his responsibility), Bava Batra 168a explains that our Sages transferred this obligation to the woman, lest the husband lack the financial resources and cause the woman to wait unnecessarily for her get.
9.
The Rambam mentions a court of law to indicate that in this instance, their authority is no greater than that of an ordinary person.
10.
The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
11.
The husband charged these individuals with the composition and the signing of the get. They do not have the authority to convey this responsibility to someone else.
In other instances, an agent can transfer his agency to another person, but here the scribe and the witness were charged with only a verbal command, and a verbal command cannot be transferred to another agent (Gittin 66b).
12.
For the difficulty is with the composition of the get itself.
13.
In contrast to the previous halachah, in which the get is deemed void, here the Rambam rules that it is unacceptable. This more lenient ruling is given because in this instance, the husband's colleagues carried out his instructions.
The Ra'avad and many other authorities also consider this get to be void, for they maintain that the scribe must hear his appointment from the husband directly. The Rambam, however, maintains that the divorce is acceptable according to Scriptural law. As a safeguard, the Rabbis did not accept it, lest a woman hire agents who will tell the scribe and witnesses to compose a get in the husband's name, even though he did not convey such instructions (Gittin 67a).
14.
For the husband did not convey the instructions to the scribe himself.
15.
Rav David HaCohen interprets this to mean that this case is judged more severely than other gittin that are unacceptable, and the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt. This is also the ruling of the Ramah. Rav Moshe Alshacar, however, differs and maintains that there is no difference between this instance and others in which the get is deemed unacceptable.
16.
The practical difference between these two terms is explained in Chapter 10, Halachot 1 and 2. When a get is void, the woman's first marriage is not annulled, and she must leave her second husband if she has remarried. Any children she bears the second husband are considered to be mamzerim. When the get is deemed unacceptable by our Rabbis, by contrast, the woman should not remarry, but if she does remarry she is allowed to remain married to her second husband.
17.
We do not suspect that the husband had a void or unacceptable get composed and gave it to his wife to cause her difficulties (Kessef Mishneh).
18.
We do not say that the agency with which they were entrusted involved only the composition of one get, and that they must receive a new charge from the husband before writing another one.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:1) states that if the get is not unacceptable, but does not conform with the standard demanded by the local Rav, the scribe does not have the right to write a second get, for the agency with which he was charged by the husband has already been discharged. Therefore, it is customary for a husband to tell the scribe and the witnesses to write as many gittin as necessary, until one finds favor in the eyes of the Rav arranging the divorce.
19.
If the husband had in fact given them only such a limited agency, were they to have another get written, they would no longer be acting in the agency of the husband, but rather on their own initiative.
Rav Moshe HaCohen differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that since they did not write an acceptable get, their agency was not completed. For the husband did not charge them with writing a worthless piece of paper; he wanted them to write a get. Note the Beit Shmuel 122:7, who interprets the disqualifying factor mentioned by the Rambam as referring to a disqualification that occurred after the get was given to the agent. He maintains that if a get that was void or unacceptable was given to the agent, even the Rambam would allow the writing of another get.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:2) quotes the ruling of the Rambam, while the Ramah follows the opinion of Rav Moshe HaCohen.
20.
We are not certain that their agency was limited in scope. Perhaps the husband's intent was that they effect the divorce.
21.
This and the following term are acceptable, because they are Aramaic equivalents of the word "divorce."
22.
These expressions do not convey adequately enough the intent that the husband desires to divorce his wife for them to be considered effective in bringing about the appointment of the agents for this purpose.
23.
Note the Beit Shmuel 141:21, who quotes authorities who maintain that even in such instances the status of the divorce should be considered doubtful.
24.
For the husband has not charged them with effecting the divorce.
25.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 6:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a person taken from jail in chains to be judged by a gentile magistrate.
26.
We assume that, in all these instances, his intent was to divorce his wife, lest he die and she be required to undergo the rite of either yibbum or chalitzah. Alternatively, he knew that he was entering a dangerous situation, and feared that he might die, without there being any witnesses of his death. In order to prevent his wife from being forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her life, he charges witnesses with the composition of a get.
He surely wanted to tell the witnesses to give the get, and it was only because of his concern with his personal situation that he forgot to do so (op. cit.). (See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:24, which relates similar concepts with regard to a person's division of his estate.)
27.
In this instance as well, we assume that the person intended to say that the get should be given, but failed to mention the point because of his preoccupation with his own concerns.
28.
For his intent is not clear, and it is possible that he wanted to deliberate before having the get given.
29.
The Rambam's ruling is debated by the commentaries, for it is questionable why the get would be considered valid, in light of the doubt that exists. Indeed, there are commentaries that suggest that the text before us is a printing error and that the Rambam considers the status of the divorce to be in doubt. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:18) rules that if the husband falls immediately afterwards, the get is acceptable. If not, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
30.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:19) states that the man must state his name, the name of his wife, the name of the city in which he lives and the name of the city in which she lives.
31.
E.g., his face had been cut to the point where his identity was no longer recognizable.
32.
The slitting of these organs are the two signs that determine whether or not ritual slaughter is acceptable.
33.
The Beit Shmuel 121:11 interprets this to mean that the man shakes his head in response to questions (see Halachah 16) and thus indicates that he desires to divorce his wife.
34.
The get is not considered to have been given after the man died, and his wife is not required to undergo the rites of yibbum or chalitzah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 28.
35.
For a person's actions to have halachic significance, he must be mentally competent at the time he performs them.
36.
Whom Genesis, Chapter 19, describes as having become so drunk that he was not aware of having sex with his daughters.
37.
The Rambam appears to be saying that if we are certain that the person is drunk, but see that he is conscious enough to have some control over his behavior, a get that he orders to be given is of doubtful status.
The commentaries question this understanding, noting that in Hilchot Ishut 4:18, the Rambam rules that kiddushin given by a drunk are viable, unless he reaches Lot's state. Similarly, with regard to the entire Torah, a drunk is considered responsible for his conduct. If he commits a transgression punishable by death while drunk, he is executed. Despite these questions, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:1) quotes the Rambam's wording. On this basis, the Beit Shmuel states that both a husband and a wife should not drink alcoholic beverages on the day of their divorce.
38.
While the husband (the principal) is incapacitated, his agent (the scribe) cannot act on his behalf. Therefore, the get should not be written until he regains his health. Nevertheless, once he regains his health, the agency that he originally gave is unaffected, and the get should be written and delivered.
39.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo questions why the Rambam uses the term "unacceptable" (pasul). Seemingly, based on Gittin 70b, this ruling should apply only when we have a means of healing the afflicted person. Otherwise, the get should be void. Indeed, in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:2), Rav Yosef Karo rules accordingly. Note, however, the Beit Shmuel 121:2, who justifies the Rambam's ruling.
[The difference between these two opinions revolves around the fundamental conception of an agent's authority. Is he acting independently of the principal (in which case the principal's state is not of concern to us) or is he considered to be an extension of the principal (in which case, if the principal is unable to perform an act, neither is his agent). See Lekach Tov, Section 1.]
Based on the above, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:4) writes that we should check that a person who is giving a get when terminally ill is sound of mind.
40.
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is three questions in which at least one of the answers differs from the other two. There are other authorities who require two sets of three questions. Also, based on Gittin 70b, the Ramah (Even HaEzer 121:5) suggests that the person should be asked questions about fruit - e.g., would he desire a summer fruit in winter? His ability to discern with regard to these matters will serve as an indicator of whether or not he is of sound mind.
41.
A deaf-mute is not considered to be of sound mind and is not held responsible for his conduct.
42.
For the marriage bond he established is binding according to Scriptural law, and he is not capable of initiating divorce proceedings that have that power.
43.
See Hilchot Edut 9:9, where the Rambam defines the term shoteh as including not only maniacs whose behavior is totally beyond control, but also those who are confused and lack the stability to function normally.
44.
Hilchot Ishut 4:9.
45.
Just as the Torah gives him authority to consecrate her, he is responsible for taking part in the divorce, for Deuteronomy 24:2 establishes an association between the forging of the marriage bond and its dissolution (Ketubot 47a).
This applies, however, only before the marriage bond is consummated. After nisu'in, the consummation of the marriage, the father no longer has any authority over his daughter even though she is below the age of majority. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:12.)
We may conclude that, before nisu'in, the Rambam does not consider the girl as having the authority to receive her own get. This opinion is accepted by most authorities and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:4). The Shulchan Aruch, however, also mentions the opinion of Tosafot, who maintain that the girl possesses this authority.
46.
I.e., a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half, who has manifested signs of physical maturity. She is already considered to be past majority with regard to certain dimensions of Torah law. Nevertheless, her father is still granted authority over her in certain contexts. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:1, 3:11.)
47.
A married girl below the age of majority, by contrast, may not appoint an agent to receive her get even if her father dies or her marriage has been consummated (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 141:3.)
48.
If the girl's father consecrates her, the kiddushin are effective according to Scriptural law, and a divorce is required. If, by contrast, the girl's father died, and her mother, her brother or she herself established a marriage bond, it is not binding according to Scriptural law and a get is not required. Instead, this marriage can be dissolved through the rite of mi'un, as described in Hilchot Ishut 4:7.
49.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:6) states that this refers to a girl of six or seven, depending on her intellectual capacities.
50.
If, however, a minor's father is alive, he can accept a get on her behalf regardless of her age or degree of understanding. Rashi (Gittin 64b) differs and maintains that if she is unable to make distinctions, she cannot be divorced even via her father. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:6) quotes both opinions, it appears to favor that of the Rambam.
51.
E.g., a man whose wife says she is repulsed by him (Hilchot Ishut 14:8), a man who was married to a woman for ten years without her bearing a child (Hilchot Ishut 15:7), a man who becomes afflicted by [constant] bad breath or an odor from his nose, one who becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper or a tanner or one who becomes a leper (Hilchot Ishut 25:11-12) or a priest who marries a divorcee (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:7).
52.
The application of this law is not confined to Eretz Yisrael or to the era when the Sanhedrin (the High Court of Law) was in power.
53.
Rav Mesharshia states that the Rabbis deemed the get unacceptable, lest women become accustomed to hiring gentiles for this purpose (Bava Batra 48a). In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that Gittin 88b appears to reject Rav Mesharshia's view and states that a get that was forced on a man by gentiles is void entirely. (This indeed is the ruling of Rashi, Rabbenu Nissim and Rabbenu Asher.) In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 134:5), Rav Yosef Karo's wording is not specific when dealing with this issue. The Beit Shmuel 134:10 states that such a get is void.
54.
See Hilchot Mechirah 10:1, which states that such a sale is acceptable, after the fact. Nevertheless, if the seller notifies the witnesses that he was compelled to sell against his will, the sale is nullified.
55.
The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.
Gerushin - Chapter Three
1
A get that is not written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce and for the sake of the woman who is being divorced is not valid.
What is implied? A scribe wrote a get to learn [scribal arts] or to teach them, and a husband came and discovered that the get was written with his name; the name of the woman was the same as his wife's name; and the name of the city the same as the name of his city. If he took [this get] and used it to divorce [his wife], the divorce is void.1
א
כל גט שלא נכתב לשם האיש המגרש ולשם האשה המתגרשת אינו גט. כיצד סופר שכתב גט ללמד או להתלמד ובא הבעל ומצא שם שנכתב בגט זה כשמו ושם האשה כשם אשתו ושם העיר כשם עירו ונטלו וגירש בו אינו גט:
2
Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had a get written so that he could divorce his wife and changed his mind. An inhabitant of his city discovered it and told him: "My name is the same as yours, and my wife's name is the same as your wife's." Although [the second man] took it and used it to divorce his wife, it is invalid,2 despite the fact that it was written in order to effect a divorce.
ב
יתר על זה כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך ומצא בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך ונטלו ממנו וגירש בו אע"פ שנכתב לשם גרושין אינו גט:
3
Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had two wives with the same name, and he wrote a get with the intent of divorcing the older one, and changed his mind and used it to divorce the younger one. The divorce is invalid. Although it was written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce, it was not written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced.
ג
יתר על זה מי שיש לו שתי נשים ששמותיהן שוות וכתב לגרש את הגדולה ונמלך וגירש בו את הקטנה אינו גט. אף על פי שנכתב לשם האיש המגרש לא נכתב לשם זו שנתגרשה בו:
4
Moreover, [in the above situation,] if he tells the scribe: "Write the get, and I will use it to divorce whichever one I desire," and the scribe wrote the get with that intent, and the husband divorced one of his wives, the status of the divorce is a matter of doubt.3
Whenever a get was not written with the proper intent, it remains void, even if the scribe rewrites the letters with the proper intent.4
ד
יתר על כן אמר לסופר כתוב ואי זו שארצה אגרש בו וכתב הסופר על דעת זו וגירש בו אחת מהן הרי זו ספק גירושין. וכל גט שכתבו שלא לשמה אע"פ שהעביר עליו קולמוס לשמה אינו גט:
5
When a man writes a get [with the intent of] divorcing his wife, but he changes his mind and does not divorce her, he may not divorce her with this same get another time should he so desire, if he entered into privacy with her after [the get] was written.
If, however, he did divorce her with this old get, the divorce is effective, and she may remarry on this basis without any qualms.5 For [the get] was written for her sake and was given to her now in the presence of witnesses, as the law requires.
Why at the outset should it not be used for divorce? [This is] a Rabbinic decree, lest [people] say: "Her get preceded [the birth of] her son."
ה
מי שכתב [גט] לגרש את אשתו ונמלך ולא גירשה ונתיחד עמה אחר שכתבו לא יגרשנה באותו הגט פעם אחרת כשירצה לגרשה. ואם גירשה באותו הגט הישן הרי זו מגורשת ותנשא בו לכתחלה שהרי נכתב לשמה והרי נתן לה עתה בעדים כהלכתו. ולמה לא יגרשנה בו לכתחלה גזרה שמא יאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה:
6
[The following rules apply when a man] tells a scribe, "Write a get for the sake of so and so, and it will remain in my possession. When I marry her, I will divorce her with it." If [the scribe] writes [such a get], and the man marries her and then he divorces her with it, the divorce is void. [The rationale is] that the woman could not be divorced when the get was written. Thus, it is considered not to have been written for the sake of divorce.
If, however, [the man] tells [the scribe]: "Write [a get] for the woman who is consecrated to me. After I consummate the marriage, I will divorce her," should he consummate the marriage and divorce her with such [a get], the divorce is binding.6
If a man had [a get] written for his yevamah, and he divorced her with it after he performed the rite of yibbum, the status of the divorce is doubtful, for she was not his wife in an absolute sense7 when [the get] was written.
ו
אמר לסופר כתוב גט לפלונית ויהיה עמי לכשאשאנה אגרשנה בו ונכתב ונשאה וגירשה בו אינו גט. מפני שלא היתה בת גירושין ממנו כשנכתב גט זה ונמצא שנכתב שלא לשם גירושין. אבל אמר לו כתוב אותו לארוסתי לכשאשאנה אגרשנה וכנסה וגירשה בו כשר. כתבו ליבמתו ואחר שיבמה גירשה בו הרי זו ספק גירושין הואיל ואינה אשתו גמורה כשכתבו:
7
In order to assist scribes,8 our Sages permitted them to write the standard texts of gittin [beforehand] and leave empty the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the time and the place for [the sentence]: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man."9 Thus, he can write [these parts of the get] for the sake of the man who gives the get and for the sake of the woman who receives it.10 Afterwards, he should have the witnesses sign for the sake of [the husband and the wife].
ז
מפני תקנת סופר התירו חכמים לסופר שיכתוב טופסי גיטין ויניח מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקום הזמן ומקום הרי את מותרת לכל אדם כדי שיכתבם לשם האיש המגרש ולשם האשה המתגרשת ואחר כך יחתמו העדים לשמו ולשמה:
8
[The following rule applies if] a scribe wrote a get for the sake of the husband and the wife as required, and the witnesses signed without having that intent. Since [the husband] gives it to [his wife] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, the get is valid [according to Scriptural law]. It is, however, {unacceptable [by Rabbinic decree].
Why is [it merely unacceptable and] not void?}11 Because the requirement for witnesses to sign the get [was instituted] only as a measure to aid society.12
There is an opinion that states that if the witnesses signed without the proper intent, since it as if it were a forgery, the get is void. Similarly, they maintain that if one of the witnesses was unacceptable, or if it was signed by one acceptable witness only, it is void even though it was transferred in the presence of witnesses.13
This ruling does not appear [correct] to me. For although [the get] resembles a forgery, it is not an absolute forgery. [Hence,] since it was transferred in the presence of acceptable witnesses, it is [merely] deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.14
ח
סופר שכתב הגט לשמו ולשמה כהלכתו וחתמו העדים שלא לשמה הואיל ומסרו לה בעדים הרי זה גט. (אלא שהוא פסול. ולמה אינו בטל) לפי שאין העדים חותמין על הגט אלא מפני תקון העולם. ויש מי שאומר שאם חתמו העדים שלא לשמה הואיל והוא כמזוייף מתוכו הרי זה גט בטל. וכן אם היה אחד מעדיו פסול או שהיה בו עד אחד בלבד כשר. אע"פ שנמסר בעדים הרי זה גט בטל. ולא יראה לי דבר זה אלא כמזוייף לא מזוייף ודאי והואיל ונמסר בעדי מסירה כשרין הרי זה פסול מדבריהם:
9
[The following rule applies when a person] bringing a get loses it, and then it is discovered. If he lost it in a place not frequented by caravans - even if he found it after a long time had passed - we presume that the get that he lost is the get that was found and [the woman] may be divorced with it.15
[However, different rules apply if a get] was lost in a place frequented by caravans. If it was discovered immediately, before any of the passersby had tarried there, or if16 it was found in the container in which it was [originally] placed, and the agent can recognize the length and the width of the get that was rolled up within, we can presume that [it is the same get], and [the woman] may be divorced with it.17
ט
המביא גט ואבד ממנו ומצאו. אם אבד ממנו במקום שאין השיירות מצויות אפילו מצאו לאחר זמן מרובה הרי זה בחזקת שהגט שאבד ממנו הוא הגט שנמצא ותתגרש בו. אבד במקום שהשיירות מצויות אם מצאו מיד ועדיין לא שהה אדם שם מן העוברים או שמצאו בכלי שהניחו בו ויש לו טביעות עין בארכו ורחבו של גט שהיה כרוך הרי הוא בחזקתו ותתגרש בו:
10
When it was established that there was another man in that place whose name was the same as the name written in the get,18 if another man passes by the place [the get was lost] - even if he did not tarry there - we suspect that the get that was found belongs to the other person.
If the woman is divorced with this get, the status of the divorce is doubtful. If, however, another person has not passed by this place, we presume that [the get that was discovered was the one that was lost], even though there are two people with the same name.19
י
הוחזק באותו המקום איש אחד ששמו כשמו שבגט חוששים שמא גט זה הנמצא של אותו האיש האחר הוא הואיל ועבר אדם שם ואע"פ שלא שהה ואם נתגרשה בו הרי זו ספק מגורשת. אבל אם לא עבר אדם שם הרי זה בחזקתו אע"פ שהוחזקו שם שנים ששמותיהן שוין:
11
If the witnesses knew of a clearly distinctive sign by means of which they could recognize the get20 - e.g., they said it had a hole next to a particular letter, or they said: "We signed only one get with these names" - we presume that [the get that was discovered was the one that was lost], and [the woman] may be divorced with it.
[This ruling applies] even when [the get] was discovered after a long time had passed, [it was lost in] a place frequented by caravans, and it was established that there were two [men] with the same names.21
יא
היה לעדים בגט סימן מובהק כגון שאמרו נקב יש בו בצד אות פלוני. או שאמרו מעולם לא חתמנו אלא על גט אחד שיש בו שמות כשמות אלו הרי זה בחזקתו ותתגרש בו ואע"פ שמצאו אחר זמן מרובה ובמקום שהשיירות מצויות והוחזקו שם שנים ששמותיהן שוין:
12
[The following rules apply when] two men [with the same names]22 sent gittin together, and they were interchanged [and it is no longer known who sent which get]. Both gittin should be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer. [In this manner, both divorces are acceptable.]23
Therefore, if one of the gittin was lost, the second get is void.24
יג
שנים ששלחו שני גיטין ונתערבו נותנין שניהן לזו ושניהן לזו בעדי מסירה. לפיכך אם אבד אחד מהן הרי השני בטל:
13
[The following rules apply when] a man has two names and a woman has two names. When a divorce is initiated, [the husband] should write the names that he and his wife use most frequently and that they are most popularly known by. [The get] should say: "So and so,25 or by whatever names that he is called, divorces so and so or by whatever names she is called."26
If he writes [the husband's] or [the wife's] nickname,27 [the get] is acceptable.28
יג
מי שהיו לו שני שמות. וכן אשה שיש לה שני שמות כשמגרש כותב שמו ושמה שהן רגילין בו ויודעין בו ביותר ואומר איש פלוני וכל שם שיש לו גירש אשה פלונית וכל שם שיש לה. ואם כתב חניכתו וחניכתה כשר:
14
If the name that was less popularly known was written [in the get], and it was also written: "or by whatever names he is called," the get is not acceptable.29
If the name of [the husband] or [the wife,] or the city in which either of them lives30 is written incorrectly, the get is void,31 despite the fact that the phrase "or by whatever names he is called" was also written in the get.
יד
כתב השם שאינם ידועים בו ביותר וכתב כל שם שיש לו הרי זה פסול. שינה שמו או שמה ושם עירו או שם עירה אע"פ שכתב כל שם שיש לו וכל שם שיש לה אינו גט:
15
All are fit to write a get, with the exception of five: a gentile, a servant, a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor. A woman may even write her get herself.
When a Jew becomes an apostate to false gods,32 or he desecrates the Sabbath in public, he is regarded like a gentile with respect to all matters [and is not fit to write a get].33
טו
הכל כשרין לכתוב את הגט חוץ מחמשה. עכו"ם ועבד וחרש ושוטה וקטן. אפילו אשה עצמה כותבת את גיטה. ישראל שהמיר לעכו"ם או שהוא מחלל שבתות בפרהסיא הרי הוא כעכו"ם לכל דבריו:
16
Why are these five individuals [prevented] from writing gittin? Because a get must be written for the sake of the man initiating the divorce and the woman receiving the divorce, and a gentile writes with his own intent.34 A deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor are not of [sufficient] mental capacity. And the laws of divorce and marriage do not apply to a servant; therefore, [in this area] he is disqualified; he is like a gentile in all respects.
If one of these five individuals writes a get, it is void,35 even if it was signed by acceptable witnesses and given in the presence of acceptable witnesses.
טז
ולמה אין כותבין אלו החמשה מפני שצריך הכותב לכתוב לשם האיש המגרש ולשם האשה המתגרשת והעכו"ם על דעת עצמו הוא כותב. וחרש שוטה וקטן אינן בני דעה. והעבד אינו בתורת גיטין וקידושין לפיכך הוא פסול כעכו"ם לכל דבריו. ואם כתב הגט אחד מחמשה אלו אינו גט אע"פ שחתמו בו עדים כשרים ונמסר לה בכשרים:
17
When one of these five individuals writes the standard portion of the get and leaves the essential portions - i.e., the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the date and the sentence: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man" - unwritten, and these were written by an adult mentally competent Jew with the proper intent, the get is acceptable.36
יז
כתב אחד מחמשה אלו טופס הגט והניח מקום התורף שהוא מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקום הזמן ומקום הרי את מותרת לכל אדם וכתבן הפקח הגדול הישראלי לשמו הרי זה גט כשר:
18
At the outset, one may allow a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person or a minor to write the standard portions of a get, provided they are supervised by a mentally competent adult.37
A gentile or a servant, by contrast, should not be allowed to write the standard portions of a get at the outset, even when supervised by a Jew. For permission to write the standard portions of a get at the outset was granted only as assistance to scribes, as we have explained.38
יח
מותר להניח חרש שוטה וקטן לכתוב טופס הגט לכתחלה והוא שיהיה גדול הפקח עומד על גבן. אבל העכו"ם והעבד אין כותבין הטופס לכתחלה ואפילו ישראל עומד על גבן שלא התירו לכתוב טופסי גיטין שלא לשמה לכתחלה אלא מפני תקנת סופר כמו שביארנו:
19
When a man writes a get on the Sabbath or on Yom Kippur, without knowing of the transgression,39 and gives it to [his wife], the divorce is effective.40 If it was written and signed on that day41 as a willful transgression and given to her, the divorce is not effective. For the witnesses [who signed] are disqualified by Scriptural law.
If it was written42 on a holiday43 as a willful transgression and given to her in the presence of acceptable witnesses on the holiday, the get is unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree].
יט
הכותב גט בשבת או ביום הכפורים בשגגה ונתנו לה הרי זו מגורשת. כתבו וחתמו בו ביום בזדון ונתנו לה אינה מגורשת שהרי העדים פסולין מן התורה. כתבו ביו"ט בזדון ונמסר לה בפני עדים כשרים ביו"ט הרי זה גט פסול:
FOOTNOTES
1.
For the get was not written with the intent of being used to effect a divorce (Gittin 24b).
2.
For the get was not written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce and for the sake of the woman who is being divorced (Ibid.).
3.
This ruling depends on the concept of b'reirah - i.e., that since ultimately the husband's intent is clarified, it is considered retroactively as if this had been his intent at the outset.
This concept of b'reirah is relevant not only in the present context, but also with regard to many other contexts discussed in the Talmud and later Rabbinic works. Generally, the rule that is followed is that with regard to questions involving Scriptural law, the concept of b'reirah is not accepted, but with regard to Rabbinic law it is accepted. On this basis, the commentaries question the Rambam's ruling. In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that although with regard to following stringencies, we say that the concept of b'reirah does not apply to questions of Scriptural law, it does apply with regard to the acceptance of a leniency. Therefore, although the woman must consider herself divorced, she does not have the prerogative of remarrying. On this basis, Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's wording in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:4). (See the Beit Shmuel 130:4, who also discusses this issue.)
4.
I.e., tracing over the letters is ineffective, for writing on top of other writing is insignificant (Gittin 20a). A parallel exists with regard to the Sabbath laws. If a person traces over letters on the Sabbath, he is not considered to have violated the forbidden labor of writing (Hilchot Shabbat 11:16).
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:5) appears to favor the Rambam's ruling, it also quotes the opinion of the Rashba, which states that consideration must be made of a get given under such circumstances.
5.
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 2, the Rambam does not consider a get that was written before it was given to be predated. Other commentaries do, however, and it is their view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5).
According to those authorities, such a get can be acceptable only when it was sent via an agent. This relates to another difference of opinion about this issue. The Tur (Even HaEzer 148) states that this ruling applies only when the get remained in the husband's possession until after he emerged from privacy with his wife. If he gave it to an agent beforehand, it is void. In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo states that the Rambam does not accept this distinction, and in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 148:1), although he mentions the Tur's view, he favors his own interpretation of the Rambam's decision.
6.
This law applies only after the fact. At the outset, such a get should not be used, as reflected in the previous halachah.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 132:1) follows the opinion of the Tur and Tosafot, who differ with the Rambam and state that the get is acceptable only when it was post-dated, and the date on which it was given was mentioned. If the date on which the get was written was mentioned, the get is unacceptable. (It is worse than an ordinary "old get," because in that instance, the couple merely entered into privacy together; we are not certain that they had relations. In this instance, by contrast, the marriage bond was consummated.)
7.
Although the yevam does not have to consecrate his yevamah, he also does not have to divorce her. Hence, there is a question whether the connection between them is sufficient for the get to be acceptable.
8.
So that they would have a get ready, in order for them to prepare it for a husband in a relatively short time. In this manner, the scribe can use his free time for a useful purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 3:2).
9.
These are the parts of the get that are of fundamental importance, and which are referred to as the toref.
10.
On this issue there is a difference of opinion in the Mishnah (loc. cit.) between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. It appears that the opinion cited by the Rambam above is that of the Sages. Thus, this ruling is worthy of notice, because it represents a change of mind on the Rambam's part, for he writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah that the halachah follows Rabbi Eliezer. (It is also noteworthy that in the Rambam's manuscripts of his Commentary on the Mishnah, the latter statement was rubbed out and written over, implying that the Rambam deliberated back and forth about the matter when composing that text. See the Kovetz and others, who discuss this issue.)
See also the Beit Shmuel 131:2, who states that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention this law, because most authorities differ with the Rambam and do not grant a scribe such license. (See also Halachah 17 and notes.)
11.
There is a question whether the words within the brackets { } are the Rambam's or a printer's addition. There is, however, no difference in law between the two versions.
12.
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 15, it is not necessary for witnesses to sign the get according to Scriptural law. Our Sages required such signatures only to afford an advantage for the woman lest the witnesses die.
13.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:17) follows the Rambam's approach and rules that such a get is unacceptable by Rabbinic decree, but not void.
14.
The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 131:6) quote the Rambam's decision, while mentioning the minority opinion.
15.
This and the following two halachot are dependent on the Rambam's understanding of a Talmudic passage that appears in Gittin 27a and Bava Metzia 18a. Many authorities differ with the Rambam in the interpretation of this passage, and it is their view that is favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 132:4), although the Rambam's view is also quoted.
According to these views, if there are two people who, with their wives, share the same name in the same town, there is a difficulty if the get was not discovered immediately.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) also mentions a difficulty when a person was seen passing by the place where the get was lost, even when the place is not frequented by caravans and it is not known that two people of the same name live in that place. His ruling is, however, questioned by the Beit Shmuel 132:10 and others.
16.
The commentaries question why the Rambam requires both factors, that the get was in its original container, and that it could be recognized. Seemingly, one factor alone is sufficient. Indeed, when discussing this issue, the Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.) requires only one factor: either that it was found in the original container, or that the agent could recognize the get.
Note the Noda BiY'hudah (Even HaEzer, Volume II, Responsum 62), who supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there are various levels of recognition. Since the agent recognizes the get only by its length and width, it is necessary that it also be found in its container.
17.
Implied is that if enough time passed for one of the passersby to wait there, the get is unacceptable.
18.
And whose wife's name is the same as the woman's name written in the get.
19.
The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that if the name of the husband's town was mentioned, and we know that there is only one couple with the name mentioned in the get, we are not concerned about the fact that caravans frequent the place. We do not suspect that there are two towns with the same name. The Beit Shmuel 131:16 questions the Ramah's ruling.
20.
A sign is, however, necessary. According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), it is sufficient for the agent who lost the get to say that he recognizes it; witnesses, by contrast, must give signs through which it can be identified (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
21.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that if there are other individuals who share the same name as the witnesses, the witnesses must also recognize their own signatures.
22.
And whose wives have the same names.
23.
I.e., the agent[s] give both gittin to one woman, and thus she receives the get intended for her. They then take the gittin from her and give them to the second woman. There is no necessity for the woman to know which get was intended for her originally (Gittin 86b; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 132:3).
24.
The Maggid Mishneh (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.) explains that if, however, the agent gives the get that remains to one or the other of the women, the status of the divorce[s] is in doubt.
25.
I.e., his most popular name.
26.
I.e., according to the Rambam, there is no obligation to mention the other names with which the husband or wife is known. Other authorities differ and require that all the names by which a man or a woman is known should be mentioned in the get. This latter view is cited by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 129:1).
This issue is particularly relevant today, when many individuals have Jewish names with which they are called to the Torah, and secular names by which they are known by and large. The Ramah (loc. cit.:16) rules that the Jewish name should be mentioned first, but the secular name should also be mentioned in the get.
27.
I.e., a derivative of the person's name by which he or she is often called - e.g., Danny, which is a derivative of either Dan or Daniel. Other interpretations of the term chanichah are offered by different commentaries.
28.
The Ra'avad states that this applies only when the nickname is more extensively used than the person's actual name. Note the discussion of this issue in the Beit Shmuel 129:1. The Beit Shmuel also discusses whether the intent is that, after the fact, a woman divorced with such a get may remarry, or whether the intent is that at the outset such a get may be given.
29.
By Rabbinic decree. If, however, both names are mentioned in the get, the get is acceptable despite the fact that the less-used name is mentioned first (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 129:2).
30.
At present, it is not customary to mention the woman's city or the man's city. Instead, the location in which the get is given is mentioned.
31.
I.e., even according to Scriptural law.
32.
Our translation is based on the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text was changed by the church's censors.
The equivalence between the desecration of the Sabbath and the worship of false gods is discussed by the Rambam at the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat, based on Horayot 8a.
33.
Note the Maggid Mishneh, who states that although an apostate is not capable of writing a get, if he is married to a Jewess, he may - and indeed should - divorce her with a get. Just as the kiddushin he gives establish a viable marriage bond (Hilchot Ishut 4:15), a get that he gives can dissolve such a bond.
34.
Even if an observant Jew stands over him, and tells him the intent with which he should write the get, it is void. (See Hilchot Tefillin 1:11.)
The Rambam puts the emphasis on the gentile's lack of proper intent to explain why a get written by an apostate is unacceptable. For the Rambam could have employed the same reason given with regard to a servant - that the laws of marriage and divorce do not apply to him - to exclude a gentile. He chose to give this reason to allude to the law concerning an apostate because an apostate also cannot be relied upon to write with the proper intent (Beit Shmuel 123:5).
The reasons given by the Rambam are significant in another context. As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 1, there is a difference of opinion among the authorities regarding whether or not the scribe writing the get must be appointed as an agent. All the individuals mentioned are not capable of serving as agents. Since that rationale is not given, it would appear that the Rambam does not require such an appointment. Nevertheless, other sources lead to the opposite conclusion.
35.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 123) quote other opinions, which maintain that such gittin are disqualified by Rabbinic law only. Hence, because of this difference of opinion, the status of the divorce is in doubt (Chelkat Mechokek 123:6).
36.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 123:3) quotes the opinion of the Tur, who maintains that in such an instance the get is deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic law.
37.
If these individuals are supervised, they will write the get with the proper intent. Hence, there is no reason to negate the feasibility of using the standard portions of the get that they wrote, out of fear that they will write the essential portions without the proper intent.
38.
Halachah 7 above.
39.
It appears that the Rambam's intent is that the get was written by the husband without his knowing of the transgression and not signed. It was given to his wife in the presence of witnesses. Although the same law would apply if the get were signed in unknowing violation of the holy day, the Rambam does not mention that possibility, because it is highly unlikely that both the man writing the get and the witnesses would not know of the transgression (Kessef Mishneh).
40.
Since the transgression was performed unknowingly, the get is acceptable. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Chulin 1:1.)
41.
Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. There are other versions that state "If it was written and signed on a holiday...."
The difference between the two versions is that the prohibition against forbidden labor is less severe on the holidays than on the Sabbath and Yom Kippur. The holidays are mentioned to emphasize that the get is void even in such an instance.
42.
By the husband and was not signed by witnesses.
43.
Here a holiday is mentioned rather than the Sabbath, because if a get were written as a willful transgression in public on the Sabbath, the writer would be considered to be an apostate, and a get that he wrote would be disqualified by Scriptural law, as mentioned in Halachah 15. Since the desecration of the holidays is not so severe, the person is not considered to be an apostate. The get he wrote is, however, disqualified by Rabbinic decree.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Wednesday, Kislev 25, 5778 · 13 December /2017
"Today's Day"
Friday, Kislev 25, First Day of Chanuka, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayeishev, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: And as for the general saying (p. 3)...self-glorification, and so on. (p. 5).
My father would kindle Chanuka lights between Mincha and Maariv; he was not particular1 whether the doorway was south-north or east-west. Haneirot halalu2 he said after kindling all the lights. He would sit near the lights for a half hour, except Fridays when he did not stay that long. He took care that the lights burned at least 50 minutes.
The order we follow is: Mincha, Chanuka lights, then Shabbat candles.
FOOTNOTES
1.In Shul the candles should stand east to west, as in the Sanctuary. Why we are not particular about this at home is not clear. Sefer Haminhagim p. 70, and f.n. 5 ibid.
2.Siddur p. 339
Daily Thought:
The Power of One
Chanukah was a victory of few over many. Each Maccabee was a hero, essential to the victory.
One could think that in those days, when the population of the world was so much smaller, a single individual would have more power to change the world. In fact, just the opposite is true. Technology and information have put enormous power in each of our hands.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment