Is Syria in or out? Yes and no. TB Gittin 8

We have to know the borders of the Land of Israel because so many laws are only observed within its borders. Two examples immediately come to mind. One is the laws of trumah and ma’aser, the special tithes removed before the produce can be eaten, and only the agent coming from outside the land of Israel has to declare that the bill of divorce he is bringing was written and sealed before him. That is why the first Mishna delineates the borders of Israel for the purpose of gittin.

“Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, from Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., it is outside of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. Likewise, from Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are two categories of conquest. The first is the “conquest of the community” (kibush rabim-כיבוש רבים ). This conquest is for the sake of the entire people of Israel sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, a prophet, or the urim and tumim worn by the High Priest. The second category conquest is the “conquest of an individual” (kibush yakhid-כיבוש יחיד). This conquest is for the sake of an individual, a family, or a tribe to enlarge his territory. King David’s war conquering Syria’s purpose was to enlarge his kingdom; consequently, a kibush yakhid. Today’s daf TB Gittin 8 analyzes whether Syria is now considered annexed and part and parcel of the Land of Israel or is it still considered outside the borders the Land of Israel? To put it in modern American terms, is Syria considered like Alaska and Hawaii are more like Puerto Rico? The Gemara answers that in three ways Syria is like the Land of Israel and in three ways dislike the land of Israel.

“The Sages taught (Tosefta, Kelim 1:5): In three ways Syria is equal to Eretz Yisrael, and in three ways it is similar to outside of Eretz Yisrael…Syria has the status of land that is outside of Eretz Yisrael in the following respects: First, its soil is ritually impure like that of land outside of Eretz Yisrael. And the second is that one who sells his slave to a master in Syria is like one who sells him to a master outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the second master is obligated to emancipate the slave. And third, one who brings a bill of divorce from Syria is like one who brings it from outside of Eretz Yisrael, in that he must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

“And in three ways Syria is similar to Eretz Yisrael: Its produce is obligated in tithe and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael. And one who wishes to enter it while remaining in a state of ritual purity may so enter, as though it were part of Eretz Yisrael. And one who acquires a field in Syria is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts [parvarei] of Jerusalem. The Gemara clarifies: The tanna who says Syria is obligated in tithe and the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael holds that the conquest of an individual is called a conquest. Once Syria was conquered by King David, who is considered an individual in this regard, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael applied to it and its residents became obligated in the mitzvot of Eretz Yisrael. (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously, this baraita has two other internal problems which now the Gemara needs to solve.

“The baraita teaches: And one who wishes to enter it and remain in a state of ritual purity may so enter. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that its soil is ritually impure? How then is it possible for one to enter it in a state of ritual purity? The Gemara answers: The baraita means that one enters it in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. In this case he remains pure, as he did not come into contact with the ground itself.

“As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside of Eretz Yisrael, in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one who did not touch the ground itself impure only in the land of the nations, concerning which they decreed impurity upon both its clumps of soil and upon its air. However, with regard to Syria, everyone agrees that they decreed impurity upon its clumps of soil, but they did not decree impurity upon its air. Therefore, it is possible to enter Syria and remain in a state of ritual purity if one does not touch the ground itself.

“The baraita further teaches: And one who purchases a field in Syria is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: With regard to which halakha was this stated? What practical ruling is taught by this statement? Rav Sheshet says: This serves to say that one writes a bill of sale [ono] for this purchase, and one may write a bill of sale even on Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. The Gemara explains: This is as Rava says with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile that he should do it, and he does so. Here too, it is referring to a situation where one tells a gentile that he should write a bill of sale, and he does so. And even though the halakha generally is that telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic decree, since the Sages prohibited instructing a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

The journey is just as important #Shavuot#devartorah

 The name given by the Torah to the festival of Shavuot is fascinating. Shavuot means ‘weeks’ and the name relates to the seven weeks which precede the festival. It’s like calling Shabbat ‘the week’, because the week precedes Shabbat. Or in a sporting context, it’s like calling the World Series the playoff, because through the playoffs we reach the World Series.

So what’s the logic behind the name Shavuot? I like to suggest that in today’s creative and sophisticated era, we can understand this name all the more. And that’s because today in our times, at the press of a button, we can receive so much of our needs almost instantly.

And this has created in turn a mindset through which we crave for instant pleasure and gratification. Sometimes we lose touch with the importance of waiting, or anticipation. When the Israelites left Egypt, having been freed from Egyptian bondage, for seven whole weeks they knew that they were to receive the Torah, to have the privilege standing at Mount Sinai to experience the greatest day that has ever taken place on earth. It was because of that weight that ultimately the day became so special and so precious.

It’s from the title Shavuot that we learn an important lesson for our times, and that is it’s not just the destination that counts – the journey is important as well. And in fact it’s through the journey that the destination will be appreciated all the more.

 

 

 

The power of tzedakah TB Gittin 7

Today’s daf TB Gittin 7 goes off on a tangent teaching us the power of tzedakah.

“Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically. Sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Ami, and sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord: Though they be in full strength [shelemim], and likewise many, even so shall they be cut down, and he shall pass away; and though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more” (Nahum 1:12). This means: If a person sees that his sustenance is limited he should use it for charity, and all the more so when it is plentiful. In other words, if his livelihood has finished [nishlam] he should perform charity, and he should certainly act in this manner if his means are plentiful.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I highly recommend reading the book The Soul of Money by Lynne Twist. She writes: “When you let go of trying to get more what you don’t really need, it frees up oceans of energy to make a difference with what you have. When you make a difference with what you have, it expands.” (Page 67) “Sufficiency isn’t an amount at all. It is an experience, a context we generate, a declaration, a knowing that there is enough, and that we are enough. Sufficiency resides inside of each of us, and we can call it forward. Is a consciousness, and attention, and internal choosing of the way we think about our circumstances. In a relationship with money, it is using money in a way that expresses our integrity; using it in a way that expresses value rather than determines value… We feel naturally called to share the resources that flow through our lives-our time, money, wisdom, our energy, and whatever level those resources flow-to serve our highest commitments… If you’re willing to let go, let go of the chase to acquire or accumulate always more and let go that way of perceiving the world, then you can take all that energy and attention and invested in what you have. When you do that you’ll find unimagined treasures, and wealth of surprising and even stunning depth and diversity.” (Page 74-75) Giving tzedakah no matter what our circumstances inculcates within us the lesson of sufficiency.

" The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Even so shall they be cut down [nagozzu], and he shall pass away”? A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who shears off [gozez] some of his property and performs charity with it will be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. The Gemara offers a parable that compares this case to two sheep that were passing through the water. One of them was shorn and the other one was unshorn. The shorn sheep crossed to the other side, but the unshorn sheep did not cross, as its wool absorbed the water and it drowned. Similarly, one who shears off his property and gives it as charity will not descend to Gehenna.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The root meeting of tzedakah (צדקה) comes from the Hebrew word tzedek (צדק) which means righteousness. More than our feelings influence our actions our actions impact our feelings. The more we give tzedakah with the correct intentions, the more righteous we become with the goal of becoming a true tzadik (צדיק), a righteous person. When we become a person who does what is right, we have no fear of judgment in this world or in the world to come.

“The Gemara addresses the continuation of the verse: “And though I have afflicted you [ve’innitikh]” (Nahum 1:12). Mar Zutra says: This means that even a poor person [ani] who is sustained from charity must also perform charity. With regard to the expression: “And I will afflict you [a’anekh] no more,” Rav Yosef teaches: This means that if he gives charity to others, God will no longer show him signs of poverty [aniyyut].” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are three reasons why a person who is sustained from charity should also give tzedakah. We should always avoid embarrassing a person. We can imagine the embarrassment of a poor person who was singled out that he doesn’t have to give because he’s too poor. Contemplate the embarrassment of Gary Greene when somebody says, “Everybody is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah, except Gary Greene who is too poor.”  Secondly, helping others generates a whole host positive feelings. Why should a poor person be denied all those positive feelings?! Last of all, the world turns around all the time. Today the persons is poor; tomorrow his fortunes may turn around and he’ll become rich. Our tradition was to inculcate the tzedakah habit so no matter what the person’s fortunes may be at any particular time, he will automatically do what is right and help the poor person by giving tzedakah.

If you want to learn more about the power of tzedakah, I highly recommend reading any one of Danny Siegel’s books and essays.

Moving changes everything we’ve assumed so far TB Gittin 6

We know that everywhere outside the Land of Israel,  an agent bringing a get has to say that “The bill of divorce was written and signed before me.” Today’s daf TB Gittin 6 wonders whether Babylonia is like the land of Israel when it comes to gittin and the agent doesn’t have to say that “The bill of divorce was written sign before me” or whether Babylonia is treated just like every other country outside the land of Israel. Is Babylonia the exception that makes the rule? Of course, there is a disagreement on this matter.

“It was stated that the amora’im disagreed concerning the status of Babylonia with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce: Rav says that Babylonia is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and Shmuel says that it is considered like outside of Eretz Yisrael.” (Sefaria.org translation)

You have to understand there were two great centers of Jewish learning at the time. One in the land of Israel and one in Babylonia. In fact over time, the Babylonian Jewish community became ascendant. The Talmud that we study for daf yomi is the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem one (with the exception of massekhet Shekalim). Since both Rava and Rabba agree that the purpose of saying the bill of divorce was written and signed before me is to ratify and certify the get, they must be arguing whether witnesses are readily available. “Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses to ratify it, and they disagree with regard to this: Rav holds that since there are central academies where people study, witnesses are frequently available to ratify bills of divorce. And Shmuel holds that those studying in the academies are preoccupied by their studies; therefore, they cannot be used as witnesses to confirm a bill of divorce, as they will not recognize peoples’ signatures.” (Sefaria.org translation)

So far everything has followed the same pattern since the very beginning of our  massekhet. Near the end of the sugiya, the Gemara throws us a curveball which changes everything.

“The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh would require that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one side of the public domain to the other side [me’arsa le’arsa]. Rav Sheshet required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one group of houses to another group of houses on the same side of the public domain. And Rava required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses.

“The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who said that the reason an agent must state the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, so why would he require the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses? The Gemara explains: Rava issued this decree only with regard to his city of Meḥoza. The reason is that the residents of Meḥoza (a major city in Babylonia with a large Jewish population and an important yeshiva -gg) are different, as they are constantly mobile, and do not stay in one place. Therefore, it is possible that the witnesses who were present when the bill of divorce was written have already moved elsewhere.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I once learned that the average American moves every six years. We Jews are no different. I imagine that Jews have always been on the move; consequently, the Shulkhan Arukh has decided that the agent always has to say that “The bill of divorce was written and signed before me” no matter where the get is delivered including the land of Israel! “And it seems to me that now even in the land of Israel he must say: It was written and signed in front of me. Hagah: And in these time one who brings a get even from one house to another house in the same city, he must say: It was written in front of me and signed in front of me (Tosafot, the beginning of Gittin).” (Even Ha’Ezer, 142:1, Sefaria.org translation) 

Why didn’t you say that first? TB Gittin 4

On Friday the Gemara spent a whole amud, one side of a daf, discussing whether Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Eliezer supported Rabba’s reason why the agent has to say that the get was written and signed for him. As I wrote on Thursday, neither tanna fully supported Rabba’s reason.

At the very end of the sugiya on today’s daf TB Gittin 4, Rav Ashi provides a completely different tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, who supports Rabba’s reason that the agent has to say both for me it was written and before me was signed 

“Rav Ashi said a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with a third opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (21b): Rabbi Yehuda invalidates a bill of divorce unless its writing and signing are performed on an item that is detached from the ground. According to this opinion, both the writing and the signing must be done for her sake.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks the obvious question why wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda consider first since he is a perfect match. “The Gemara asks: And initially, what is the reason we did not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn’t it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

"The Gemara answers: We seek to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as there is a general principle that a ruling in an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Likewise, we seek to interpret the mishna in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, as we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to bills of divorce. For these reasons, the Gemara first attempted to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of one of these tanna’im, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Akiva began to organize the Mishnah and his student Rabbi Meir continued his work. Ultimately Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi finished editing a Mishna around the year 200 CE. A stam Mishna is a Mishna that is not attributed to any Rabbi. It looks authorless. There is a tradition that a stam Mishnah’s author is Rabbi Meir according to Rabbi Akiva. Since our Mishna is unattributed, our first assumption is Rabbi Meir is author of the Mishna. When he does not align perfectly with Rabba, the Gemara then goes on to Rabbi Eliezer because the halakha follows him concerning the laws of divorce. When he does not align perfectly with Rabba, the Gemara only now suggests a rabbi from left field who has been mentioned, Rabbi Yehuda.

There is an important tosefot on our daf ד"ה דְּקַיְימָא לַן הִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ בְּגִיטִּין . In the middle it tells us: “Therefore it is important to be careful that the witnesses who transmit the get be present when the get is delivered because Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce (and not the witnesses who signed the get-gg). If the witnesses of transmission are not present-the woman is not divorced even though there are witnesses who signed the get. There is no benefit of the witnesses who sign the get unless the witnesses of transmission die or go overseas. Then based on the witnesses who signed the get, the woman may remarry for the assumption is everything was done in a kosher way.” (My translation)

Don’t be cruel TB Gittin 5

Both Rabba and Rabbah agree that the get needs to be certified. Rabba just adds a second qualification that the agent has to verify that the get was written for the sake of the specific man and woman. What happens if the agent doesn’t say “The bill of divorce was written and signed before me” when he delivers the get? Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree whether this faux pas can be corrected or not on today’s daf TB Gittin 5.

“It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that it is sufficient that the agent state his declaration before an additional two people: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and gave it to the woman but did not say to her: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and she remarries, her second husband must divorce her, and the offspring of the second marriage is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

“And the Rabbis say: The offspring is not a mamzer. How should the agent act to remedy the situation? He should return, take the bill of divorce from her, and again give it to her in the presence of two witnesses, and he should say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Although the dispute in this baraita is referring to a different issue, it mentions incidentally that the document must be transmitted in the presence of two people, not three.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara can barely believe its ears. Is it really possible that Rabbi Meir would host such a harsh view?! “After citing the baraita the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, does he maintain that merely because the agent did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, the second husband must divorce her and the offspring is a mamzer? Is the halakha so strict that the divorce is invalidated even if the witness actually saw the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and simply neglected to state the declaration?

“The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Meir conforms to his own line of reasoning with regard to this issue. As Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that in any case where one who deviates from the formula coined by the Sages with regard to bills of divorce, and the woman married despite this, the second husband must divorce the woman who married him on the basis of that bill of divorce, and the offspring is a mamzer.” (Sefaria.org translation) Unfortunately the answer is yes.

First of all, some rishonim mitigate the harshness of Rabbi Meir’s opinion by holding that he agrees if the agent gives the get again and say the magic formula of “The bill of divorce was written and signed before me” before the woman has remarried, the get is valid.(Tosefot) Some rishonim contend that even though the woman has remarried as long as she has not given birth, the agent can give the get again and say the magic formula, the get becomes valid. (Meiri). The Ritba takes the most lenient view saying that as long as the agent gives the woman her get again and says the magic formula she doesn’t have to leave her new husband as would be the case of an adulterous woman. Unfortunately, the child born of this marriage before the get was correctly given is still a mamzer.

Fortunately, the halakha follows the sages.

“[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a get in the diaspora and gives it to the woman in private, or gives it to her in the presence of two witnesses, but does not tell her: "It was written and signed in my presence." Even if she has married, he should take the get back from her and then give it to her in the presence of two witnesses and say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If he does not take it back from her, the divorce is unacceptable until the signatures [of the witnesses] are verified.” Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, chapter 7, Halakha 17, (Sefaria.org translation) See also: Shulkhan Arukh, Even Ha’Ezer, 142:7.

By the way, there are three ways a document can be certified. 1. The people in the document can come forward and verify that this was a true transaction. 2. Witnesses who saw the document being signed can verify the document by coming forward and testifying to that fact. 3. If there are no witnesses, a verified document with the same signatures can be brought and the signatures on both documents can be compared.

What effectuates the get? TB Gittin 3

Rabba’s reason why the agent has to say “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara tries to align which tanna subscribes to Rabba’s reason that the agent needs to say the get was written and signed before him.

To appreciate the Gemara, we have to understand the disagreement concerning what effectuates the get and dissolves the marriage. Is it the witnesses who signed the get that dissolves the marriage? Or is it the witnesses who witnessed the get being delivered to the woman dissolves the marriage? Rabbi Meir holds it is the witnesses sign the get while Rabbi Eliezer holds it is the witnesses who witness the get being delivered. We shall see that this debate will continue throughout our entire massekhet.

Neither seem to be good candidates. Rabbi Meir would hold that the agent would only have to say it was signed in my presence. Rabbi Eliezer would hold that the agent would only have to say it was written in my presence.

“If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he requires signing for her sake; however, he does not require that the writing must be for her sake. As we learned in a mishna (21b): One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground, e.g., a leaf attached to a tree. However, if he wrote it on something that is attached to the ground, and then he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid. This indicates that the essential stage of writing a bill of divorce is when it is signed by witnesses. The Gemara says that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion, as an unattributed ruling in the mishna typically follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

“If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rabbi Meir and requires that the writing must be for her sake, he does not require that the signing must be for her sake. And if you would say that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when Rabbi Elazar does not require signing for her sake, he means by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law he requires that bills of divorce must be signed for her sake; but that is untenable, as the Sages listed three bills of divorce that are valid by Torah law but are invalid by rabbinic law, and when he disputes that ruling Rabbi Elazar does not require that the signing must be for her sake.

"As we learned in a mishna (86a): Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman married another man after having received one of these bills of divorce the offspring is of unflawed lineage. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would render their child as one born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And these three are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document; and if there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it; and if there is a date written on it but it has only one witness signed on it. These are the three invalid bills of divorce concerning which the Sages said: And if she married, the offspring is of unflawed lineage.

“The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he gave it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written to her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Elazar maintains that witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband could contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. In any case, it can be seen from this mishna that according to Rabbi Elazar the signatures of the witnesses are not an essential part of a bill of divorce. Consequently, it does not need to be signed for her sake, even by rabbinic law. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

This analysis continues on tomorrow’s daf.

 

 

 

Why not begin by defining what is a get? TB Gittin 2

Today we begin massekhet TB Gittin with daf 2. Massekhet Gittin basically deals with one topic, how does a husband divorce his wife. Although the word get (גֵּט ) just means a document, in common parlance it is a bill of divorce. A husband can appoint an agent in his stead to deliver the get and a wife can appoint an agent to receive the get. Each get must be written explicitly for the sake of divorcing a specific couple.

As the Mishnah stands right now, it provides four different opinions when the agent of the husband has to say before delivering the get, “This bill of divorce was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”

1.    An agent who brings a bill of divorce [get] from a husband to his wife from a country overseas, i.e., from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, is required to state the following formula when he hands over the bill of divorce: This bill of divorce was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

2.    Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem (which most commentators identify it as the city southeast of the land of Israel, near Petra-gg) or from Ḥeger (commentators identify the city just south of Be’er Sheva-gg), which are on the periphery of Eretz Yisrael, must make this declaration

3.    Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod must also make this declaration, despite the fact that these places are only a short distance apart. The reason is that the village of Ludim was not part of the main area settled by Jews in Eretz Yisrael.

4.    And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. And likewise an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within the overseas countries is also required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

a.     Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: This halakha applies not only to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another, but even to one who takes it from one district [hegmonya] to another district in the same country. (An example would be West Berlin and East Berlin during the Cold War-gg) (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Rabba and Rav disagree about the reason of this rabbinic enactment that the agent has to say, “This bill of divorce was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”

“Rabba says: It is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question.

“Rava says a different reason: It is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.” (Sefaria.org translation. 

More this disagreement as we progress through this chapter.

One more question needs to be addressed. Why does our massekhet begin with this topic instead of answering more fundamental questions like what are all the laws concerning the get itself? I’ll provide two possible answers. First of all, the bill of divorce is a Torah law and having the agent declare this declaration is rabbinic in origin. The rabbis enjoyed discussing rabbinic law first because it was beloved in their eyes. Secondly, the end of the marriage with divorce is always sad because the promise and hope of the couple underneath the wedding canopy was not fulfilled. The rabbis did not want to begin the massekhet with such a sad note. The divorce is not final when the agent makes his declaration.

 

Greatness hasn’t died TB Sotah 48-49

 Today we finish massekhet Sotah! The last two dappim of our massekhet, TB Sotah 40-49, lament the world that once was. I think nostalgia has a way of warping our appreciation of who we are, because we always think the previous generations were greater, better, and smarter than us.

“The mishna states that from the time when the Second Temple was destroyed men of faith ceased. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are people who believe in the Holy One, Blessed be He, and place their trust in Him in all their ways. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says that whoever has bread in his basket to eat today and says: What shall I eat tomorrow, meaning he does not know how he will acquire bread for tomorrow, he is nothing other than from those of little faith. One must trust in God to provide him with his sustenance.” (daf 48a, Sefaria.com translation)

People great faith did not cease when the second Temple was destroyed. I can honestly state that I knew a person of great faith and her name was the Rabbanit Brakha Kapakh z”l. She was an amazing woman who dedicated her life to the observance of mitzvot and tzedakkah. Her storage room was filled with wedding dresses. She loaned them to poor brides so their day would be special. I had the honor of collecting and then donating half a dozen wedding dresses to her collection. She started a day camp in her neighborhood so the mothers could go to work and provide for their families. She collected and then provided Passover supplies to hundreds of needy families so they could celebrate Passover joyously and with dignity. You could tell the way she spoke that she never doubted for one second that God would help her provide everything she needed. For all her tzedakkah work, she was awarded the Israel prize. I made sure that all my sons have the opportunity to meet such an amazing and woman of great faith. Her children now continue in her name all of her above projects and more.

Our massekhet ends with what was lost when each great Rabbi of the Mishnah died.

“The mishna taught that from the time when Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai died, wisdom ceased. The Sages taught: From the time when Rabbi Eliezer died, it was as if the Torah scroll had been interred, as he had memorized many secrets of the Torah. From the time when Rabbi Yehoshua died, council and deliberate thought ceased, as he had the sharpest mind in Israel. From the time when Rabbi Akiva died, the powerful arm of Torah, meaning the exposition of all the details of Torah scripture, ceased, and the fountains of wisdom were sealed…From the time when ben Azzai died, the diligent ceased; from the time when ben Zoma died, the exegetists ceased…The final line of the mishna states that from the time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rav Yosef said to the tanna who reviewed the mishna: Do not teach that humility ceased, for there is still one who is humble, namely me. Rav Naḥman similarly said to the tanna who reviewed the mishna: Do not teach that fear of sin ceased, for there is still one who fears sin, namely me.” (daf 49b, Sefaria.org translation)

The editor of the Gemara always tries hard to end the massekhet on a positive note. To put colloquially, Rav Yosef and Rav Naḥman were saying, “What am I? Chopped liver?” We can miss the examples of our past, but that doesn’t mean all their greatness has died with them. Rav Yosef and Rav Naḥman are reminding us that each generation produces great leaders and people to inspire us to become all we can be. If they can do it, so can we.

Tomorrow we begin the new massekhet Gittin which deals with the laws of divorce.

 

 

 

Why the ritual of the eigel arufa (עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה) is so important TB Sotah 44b-47a

The ninth and final chapter of our massekhet begins on daf TB Sotah 44b. This chapter’s main concern is the ritual of the eigel arufa (עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה). The first nine verses of chapter 21 in the book of Deuteronomy describe this ritual.

“If, in the land that your God YHVH is assigning you to possess, someone slain is found lying in the open, the identity of the slayer not being known, your elders and magistrates shall go out and measure the distances from the corpse to the nearby towns. The elders of the town nearest to the corpse shall then take a heifer which has never been worked, which has never pulled in a yoke; and the elders of that town shall bring the heifer down to an everflowing wadi, which is not tilled or sown. There, in the wadi, they shall break the heifer’s neck.

“The priests, sons of Levi, shall come forward; for your God YHVH has chosen them for divine service and to pronounce blessing in the name of YHVH, and every lawsuit and case of assault is subject to their ruling. Then all the elders of the town nearest to the corpse shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken (עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה) in the wadi. And they shall make this declaration: “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, YHVH, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel.” And they will be absolved of bloodguilt.

“Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of YHVH.”

 

Our Gemara goes into great detail how this ritual is performed. Members of the Sanhedrin from Jerusalem go to the scene of the crime and measures which city is the closest. Then the elders must make the above declaration in Hebrew. This Hebrew declaration is the reason this chapter is appended to massekhet Sotah. It is listed in the previous chapter as one of the declarations recited in Hebrew. We have to ask ourselves though why is this ritual so important.

The shedding of innocent blood is one of the greatest sins conceivable in the Torah. God’s justice requires that the murderer be tried in a court of justice so the guilt of the blood of the innocent be removed from the land. If this innocent blood isn’t removed, the land itself becomes polluted. Back in the Noah story we learn what happened when innocent blood isn’t removed.

According to the Torah, there were no laws nor courts of justice from the time of Adam to Noah. God tells Noah the reason why he is going to destroy the world. “God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. 6:13) With no restraints, this lawlessness led to an abundance of murder of innocent blood. There is no way to remove this blood guilt. It just built up and built up until God could no longer tolerate this pollution. His method of bringing a flood to destroy the world washed away all the blood guilt that had piled up. In other words, God cleaned up the mess humans made.

One of the seven laws God gave Noah was the prohibition of murder and its punishment to ensure that this blood guilt would never reach such a critical point again that will force God’s hand to wash it away again. “But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of humankind, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of everyone for each other!

“Whoever sheds human blood,
By human [hands] shall that one’s blood be shed;
For in the image of God
Was humankind made.” (Gen. 9:5-6)

In the case of a murder where the murder was unknown, the Torah provides a method to remove the blood guilt and cleanse the land of this pollutant.

In American law we have the concept of accomplices after the fact. “An accessory-after-the-fact is someone who assists 1) someone who has committed a crime, 2) after the person has committed the crime, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the crime, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment.” (https://criminal.altmanllp.com/accessory-before-after-the-fact.html#:~:text=An%20accessory%20before%20the%20fact%20is%20defined%20as%20someone%20who,the%20crimes%20suggest%2C%20one%20is)

Murder is such a great sin that the Torah creates a new category of accomplices before the fact. The elders have to say: : “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done….” Who would have thought for a moment that these elders committed this murder? Would you believe that I or your Rabbi could commit such a heinous act?! The answer has to be absolutely not. This thought would probably never ever enter your mind. The Gemara raises this question and then answers why the elders had to announce they were not accomplices before the act. “The Elders of that city would then wash their hands in water in the place of the breaking of the neck of the heifer, and they would recite: “Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare that the victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.” (46a, Sefaria.org translation)

The ritual of the eigel arufa challenges us not to be accomplices before the fact when dealing with our own poor and the masses of refugees seeking a better life due to war and crime in their home country or do we provide them with food, shelter, and medicine so they can seek asylum in our country.

 

 

Draft dodging yeshiva students TB Sotah 44

Daf TB Sotah 44 concludes the eighth chapter of our massekhet. On the whole, it continues to discuss the exemptions for military service of the previous daf. One of the major areas of contention between the secular and traditionally observant Jews and between the ultra-Orthodox in Israel is the blanket exemption which lasts the entire lifetime given to the ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students. In essence, this exemption is the loophole that allows these students to dodge the draft. The number of these yeshiva students increases from year to year. The ultra-Orthodox do not share the burden of defending the Jewish state.

Rabbi Reuvan Hammer z”l on behalf of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel’s Law Committee wrote a responsa in the year 5747  answering the question “Does halakha justify this exemption? The English summary follows:

“As a general principle, the Torah commands the responsibility of military service of every Israelite. There are temporary exemptions for those who are at a particular point in their lives and have not the opportunity to savor specific major personal developments. And the one who is fearful-who is psychologically unfit-is exempt. The rabbis tended to nullify the exemptions. Thus they saw the exemptions as temporarily waving front-line duty only; there remained the obligation to perform auxiliary support services. They further nullified the exemption as applying only in the instance of an optional war (the purpose of this war is to enlarge the borders of the land of Israel-gg). The commanded war, the necessary war, avoids all exemptions. Surely pikuach nefesh-the saving of a life-is a commandment of the highest priority. In today’s world, service in Zahal, the Army of Israel, is an act of pikuach nefesh. It is at the same time a concretization of the commandment “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” During the biblical period one may understand that levites and priests as ritual functionaries and teachers were exempt from normal military duties. But even if there were such a broad exemption, it does not appear to have extended to a period of warfare. Among the commentators, some reject this approach to blanket exemption altogether. Others would apply only to rare outstanding individuals-not as a basis for general exemption of large numbers. There is a Talmudic approach which would exempt “rabbis” from some kinds of routine obligation. We surely do not see this as a basis for exempting large numbers of students from the commandment of saving Israel from its enemies.

“Conclusion: Service in Zahal is a halachic duty incumbent upon every Jew living in the state of Israel. Whoever sees himself as engaged in important religious work has an even greater obligation to set an example by military service. Only in this way can he be properly prepared to effectively participate in a commanded war for the safety of the State of Israel. Not to do this involves violation of three major mitzvot: Participation in a commanded war for the defense of the state of Israel; “do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor;” the saving of human life. To shirk this duty is to violate the Halacha.”

Pre-World War II in Eastern Europe, only the best students studied in yeshivot. If the student was not  yeshiva material, he went to work. Even the majority of the best students ultimately left the yeshiva and found employment to support his family. Only a small majority remained in the yeshiva their entire life.

David Ben-Gurion, the greatest founder of the modern State of Israel, made a tragic mistake by giving the ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students military exemptions. After the Holocaust, he was persuaded that the remnant of that world deserved special dispensations. He was willing to grant such exemptions because he thought that the ultra-Orthodox would disappear as the majority of them would ultimately embrace modernity.

How wrong he was! Now all the ultra-Orthodox students, whether they are academically able are not, remain in the yeshiva and do not enter the workforce at all. Their rabbis demand larger and larger subsidies to maintain their schools.  In fact, another complaint of secular Israelis is that these yeshiva students do not have any of the skill sets to contribute economically to the society they live in. They take, but do not give in return.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biblical exemptions for military service TB Sotah 43

The Mishna on today’s daf TB Sotah  43 describes the exemptions from military service. Before we analyze the Mishnah, we must review eight verses in Deuteronomy and I’ll analyze them according to the Gemara. These eight verses can be divided into three distinct sections.

According to Abaye on our daf,  the priest anointed to be the chief chaplain of the Army speaks these words of encouragement while another priest broadcasts them to the troops. “Before you join battle, the priest shall come forward and address the troops. He shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel! You are about to join battle with your enemy. Let not your courage falter. Do not be in fear, or in panic, or in dread of them. For it is your God YHVH who marches with you to do battle for you against your enemy, to bring you victory.’” (vv. 2-4)

The second section enumerates the three categories of exemptions. The priest announces these exemptions and the officers broadcast them to the troops. “Then the officials shall address the troops, as follows: ‘(Exemption #1) Is there anyone who has built a new house but has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another dedicate it.

(Exemption #2) Is there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another harvest it.

(Exemption #3) Is there anyone who has paid the bride-price for a wife, but who has not yet taken her [into his household]? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another take her [into his household as his wife.’” (vv. 5-7)

The third section adds one more exemption. An officer announces this exemption and other officers broadcast it to the troops. “The officials shall go on addressing the troops and say, ‘Is there anyone afraid and disheartened? Let him go back to his home, lest the courage of his comrades flag like his.’” (vv. 8)

Our Mishna divides the second section of exemptions into two levels. The first level: the soldiers are exempt from battle; however, they must contribute to the war effort on the home front. The second level: soldiers are totally exempt from the battle and from contributing to the home front effort.

The first level: “The mishna continues its discussion of the speech given before battle. “And the officers shall speak to the people, saying: What man is there that has built a new house, and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it” (Deuteronomy 20:5). He is sent home if he is one who builds a storehouse for straw, a barn for cattle, a shed for wood, or a warehouse. Similarly, it applies if he is one who builds, or if he is one who purchases, or if he is one who inherits, or if he is one to whom it is given as a gift. In all these instances, the man returns from the war encampment.

"The next verse states: “And what man is there that has planted a vineyard, and has not used the fruit thereof? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle and another man use the fruit thereof” (Deuteronomy 20:6). He is sent home if he is one who plants a whole vineyard of many vines, or if he is one who plants as few as five fruit trees of another variety, and even if these five are from the five species. The produce need not be all of one species. The same applies if he is one who plants, or if he is one who layers the vine, bending a branch into the ground so that it may take root and grow as a new vine, or if he is one who grafts different trees onto one another. And it applies if he is one who purchases a vineyard, or if he is one who inherits a vineyard, or if he is one to whom the vineyard is given as a gift.

“The next verse states: “And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her” (Deuteronomy 20:7). He is sent home if he is one who betroths a virgin, or if he is one who betroths a widow. This applies even if his yevama, his late brother’s wife, is a widow waiting for him as her yavam to perform levirate marriage; and even if he heard that his brother died in the war and the widow begins to wait for him only then, he returns and goes home. Each of these men, although they are exempt, still hear the address of the priest and the regulations of war at the local camp, and thereafter they return to their respective homes. However, they still support the war effort, and they provide water and food for the soldiers and repair the roads.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The second level: the soldier is totally exempt from all wartime obligations. “These are the men who do not even move from their places because they do not even report to the camp: One who built a house and dedicated it within the year; one who planted a vineyard and used its fruit for less than a year; one who marries his betrothed and one who marries his yevama, his brother’s widow who must enter into a levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza, as it is stated: “When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army…he shall be free for his house one year, and shall cheer his wife whom he has taken” (Deuteronomy 24:5). The mishna interprets the verse as follows: “For his house”; this means his house that he built. “He shall be”; this term includes his vineyard. “And shall cheer his wife”; this is his wife. “Whom he has taken”; this phrase comes to include his yevama, who is considered his wife with respect to this halakha although he has not yet married her. Those who are exempt for these reasons do not even provide water and food to the soldiers, and they do not repair the roads.” (Sefaria.org  translation)

Everybody else must report for duty. “And these are the men who do not return to their homes: One who builds a gateway, or an enclosed veranda [akhsadra], or a balcony; or one who plants no more than four fruit trees or even five or more non-fruit bearing trees; or one who remarries his divorced wife. Nor is there an exemption for one who has betrothed a woman whom he is not permitted to marry: With regard to a widow betrothed to a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:7); a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza], in lieu of entering into a levirate marriage, betrothed to a common priest (see Leviticus 21:13–15); a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman betrothed to an Israelite; or an Israelite woman betrothed to a mamzer or a Gibeonite (see Deuteronomy 23:3); such a man does not return to his home. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who rebuilds a house as it stood originally would not return. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who builds a new brick house in the Sharon would not return because these houses are not stable and are expected to collapse periodically.” (Sefaria.org translation)