Thursday, June 29, 2023

The observance of the mitzvot is a privilege TB Gittin 44

Today’s daf TB Gittin 44 deals with one topic alone. A person who sells his Canaanite slave to a non-Jew must redeem him by buying him back and then set him free. “MISHNA: In a case of one who sells his slave to gentiles, or even to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated. ” (TB Gittin 43b, Sefaria.org translation) The original owner is expected to redeem his slave up to 10 times the slave’s value. “And there are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that with regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, even though he can no longer enslave him, he is penalized and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for up to ten times the slave’s value.” (Sefaria.org translation) Both Rambam and Shulkhan Arukh accept this version of Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement as the halakha.

Why do the rabbis penalize the owner of the slave that he must redeem his slave and then set him free? The answer lies on how the rabbis view the observance of the mitzvot. Although a Canaanite slave is not Jewish, he is also no longer a pagan. His status is somewhere in between. If he is a male, he is circumcised. All Canaanite slaves are obligated to observe the same mitzvot a Jewish woman is classically obligated to observe. A Canaanite slave just can’t marry a free Jewish person until he/she is freed and thus become a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.

Because the Canaanite slave has the honor, privilege, and opportunity to observe the mitzvot, this honor, privilege, and opportunity must not be taken away from him by selling him to a pagan. In the pagan’s household, this slave would not be able to observe any of the mitzvot. For taking away this honor and privilege, the rabbis penalize the original Jewish owner by making him redeem his former slave and then setting him free.

Many modern Jews think that the observance of the mitzvot is a great and heavy burden. As we have analyzed today’s daf, the rabbis considered it just the opposite. The ability to observe the mitzvot is a privilege and an honor. Nobody captures this idea better than Rabbi Hananya ben Akashya who taught “The Holy One, blessed be He, desire to benefit the people Israel; therefore, God gave them the Torah with an abundance of mitzvot; as it is written, ‘It pleased the Lord, for the sake of (Israel’s) righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious.’ (Isaiah 62:21) (TB Mishna Makkot 3: 16) That’s a much better approach to the observance of the mitzvot than saying in a whining voice, “Do I have to?!”

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Pursuing peace #devartorah#parashathukatbalaj#parashathashavua

The Israelites are closing in on their goal of reaching the Promised Land.  They are marching to reach it from the other side of the Jordon River.  The Torah records: “Israel now sent messengers to Sichon king of the Amorites saying, ‘Let me pass through your country. We will not turn off into fields or vineyards, and we will not drink water from wells.  We will follow the king’s highway (to pay all the tolls) until we have crossed your territory.” (Nu. 21:21-2) But Sichon not only did he forbid Israel from crossing his border, he waged war on them only lose to them.  Now the Israelites controlled the land from the Arnon River to the Jabbok River.

Why did Moses send messengers to Sichon?  We are only obligated to observe the mitzvot when the opportunity presents itself.  We only have to wave the Lulav and Etrog on Sukkot, not before and not after. Only when you harvest you fields, do you have to make provisions for the poor like allowing them to glean the crop and pick up the forgotten sheaves. You only have to put the tzitzit on a four corner garment an no other you might own.

Peace is different.  We shouldn’t wait around for peace to come our way.  We’re obligated to pursue peace as it is written in Pslam 34:15 “Seek peace and pursue it.”  Therefore Moses sent messengers to Sichon to seek peace.

I wonder what the Israel and the Palestinian territory would look like if each side would really actively seek peace instead of blaming the other side for the lack of it. Wouldn’t peace be nearer if each leader would ask himself “What can I do that would bring peace a little bit closer to fruition?”

 

 

 

 

Admitting mistakes TB Gittin 43

I read a very interesting book Mistakes Were Made (but Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The authors show in every profession people won’t admit a mistake even when facts prove otherwise. For example, doctors won’t admit misdiagnosing and  police won’t admit arresting the wrong person. Only when a third party who is not emotionally involved in the initial decision can see a mistake and correct it 

Rabba bar Rav Huna on today’s daf TB Gittin 43 is the exception that makes the rule. According to halakha, a Jew cannot marry a Canaanite slave. The Gemara is dealing with the question whether a Jew’s betrothal is effective with a Canaanite woman who is a half slave and a half free person. “Rabba bar Rav Huna taught this halakha in public: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Ḥisda challenges Rabba bar Rav Huna analogy. Rav Ḥisda said to him as a question: Are the cases comparable? There, where he betroths half a woman, he leaves a portion of the woman out of his acquisition. That is why the betrothal does not take effect. However, here, she was a half-maidservant half-free woman when he betrothed her, and he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition, so the betrothal should take effect.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabba bar Rav Huna didn’t double down and insist that he was correct. He immediately admitted that he was wrong and made sure that he corrected himself in public since his initial position was taught in public. “Rabba bar Rav Huna went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and he interpreted a verse homiletically. The verse states: “And let this stumbling-block be under your hand” (Isaiah 3:6). A person does not understand statements of Torah unless he stumbles in them. Therefore, I retract my previous statement and say that although the Sages said that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, however, if there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is a valid betrothal. What is the reason for the distinction? There, he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition; here, he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition.Rabba bar Rav Huna went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and he interpreted a verse homiletically. The verse states: “And let this stumbling-block be under your hand” (Isaiah 3:6). A person does not understand statements of Torah unless he stumbles in them. Therefore, I retract my previous statement and say that although the Sages said that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, however, if there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is a valid betrothal. What is the reason for the distinction? There, he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition; here, he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition. (Sefaria.org translation)

Who hasn’t made a mistake? Making mistakes is just part of the learning process. How else would we grow if we claimed all mistakes were made by others and not us?! We would do well to follow Rabba bar Rav Huna’s example by admitting a mistake and immediately correcting it.

 

 

 

Friday, June 23, 2023

Hopefully I won’t go broke TB Gittin 38

Slavery is an evil wrong and cannot be tolerated in our modern era. Nevertheless, it was a reality in the ancient world and in the United States until 1865. Just like all other peoples, Jews owned slaves. There are two categories of slaves, Hebrew slaves who sold themselves off to pay their debts and Canaanite slaves. Each have their own set of rules.

Today’s daf TB Gittin 38 is a main source for the laws concerning Canaanite slaves. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree whether one is permitted to free a Canaanite slave. “The Sages taught: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever, (Leviticus 25:46) is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation. ” (Sefaria.org translation) Even though the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva, there are countless stories in the Talmud where rabbis freed their slaves. There is one even on our daf! “There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue to pray, and he did not find a quorum of ten men, and he emancipated his slave and had him complete a quorum of ten.” (Sefaria.org translation)

A Canaanite slave had a quasi-Jewish status. He was circumcised, taken to the mikvah, and obligated to observe all the commandments that a Jewish woman had to. However, he was only permitted to marry another Canaanite slave and not a Jewish woman. Once he was emancipated, he became a full-fledged member of the Jewish people and could marry a Jewish woman. Rav and Shmuel disagree whether he needed a bill of manumission in order to marry Jewish woman. Rav said yes and Shmuel said it wasn’t necessary.

Rabba must have followed Rabbi Akiva concerning emancipating a slave when he taught that God punishes a person who does the following three things. “Rabba said: With these three matters homeowners become impoverished: That they emancipate their slaves; and that they inspect their property on Shabbat; and that they set their meals on Shabbat at the time of the sermon in the study hall, so that they miss it, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There were two families in Jerusalem, one that set its meal on Shabbat and one that set its meal on the eve of Shabbat, and both of them were uprooted. One family was uprooted because they caused the suspension of Torah study, and the other was uprooted because by eating their meal on Shabbat eve, they did not properly distinguish between Shabbat and Shabbat eve.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We can appreciate why inspecting property on Shabbat is an inappropriate activity. It sends the message that his property is more important than the observance of Shabbat. We can also understand the rabbis self-serving proclamation listening to a sermon should take priority over running home to eat a meal on Shabbat. (I don’t have to worry about leaving before the sermon, since I often give the sermon.) But what’s so bad about eating a meal on the eve of (Erev) Shabbat?

Rashi provides to different answers. If one has a big meal Friday night, he will by necessity have a smaller meal Saturday afternoon when the essence of honoring the Shabbat should be observed. Alternately, by having a big meal Friday afternoon, the person won’t enter Shabbat with an appetite. There is also other concerns that other commentators have. By having a big meal Friday afternoon, the person won’t have time to set a Shabbat table in honor of Shabbat. (Ramban) By eating and concluding the meal before Shabbat, the person would not have fulfilled the mitzvah of kiddush since kiddush has to be accompanied by a meal. (Shita Mekubetzet)

During the summertime when Shabbat began so late, we don’t like to eat such a late supper. We will eat dinner 1 ½ hours before I go to services. Services last approximately an hour. When I come home we observe all the Shabbat rituals singing Shalom Aleichem and Eishet Hayil, reciting kiddush over the wine and motzi over the hallah. Then we eat the best part of dinner-dessert! Afterwards I recite Grace after meals. We always have a good meal Shabbat afternoon thanks to our synagogue’s kiddush luncheon. Hopefully we satisfy all the potential stumbling blocks that Rabba warned about.

Thursday, June 22, 2023

Compromise is key #devartorah#parashathashavua#parashatKorakh

 In this week’s Torah portion, Korach, Korakh tries to usurp Moses’ position of leadership.  He openly quarrels with Moshe to wrest away his mantle of leadership.  This quarrel is rather unique in the history of human kind.  In this case Moses was 100% right and Korakh was 100% wrong.  But in most feuds and arguments even if one side is more correct than the other, both sides are usually making mistakes.

Husbands and wives, parents and children, and siblings often fight over most anything.  After a quarrel, a husband said to his wife, “You know I was a fool when I married you.” She replied, “Yes dear, I know but I was in love and didn’t notice it.”  When two people argue, each person states his position and then blames the other for the problem.  Nobody really listens. He or she is too busy buttressing his/her case. A stalemate occurs, anger festers, and the couple drifts apart. 

After hearing the other side, each person in the argument should ask himself or herself “What can I live with.”  Compromise is the key to any solution on any problem When involved in a quarrel, don’t focus on yourself. Ask yourself “What can I live with so that all the people involved can be satisfied with the outcome.”

 

 

 

 

 


What or who is he lifting up? TB Gittin 37

The shemita, sabbatical, year has come and gone and loans have been forgiven. Today’s daf TB Gittin 37 provides a script that allows the one who loans money to recover the loan.

“In the case of one who repays a debt to his friend during the Sabbatical Year, the creditor must say to him: I abrogate the debt, but if the debtor then said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, he may accept it from him, as it is stated: “And this is the manner [devar] of the abrogation” (Deuteronomy 15:2). From the fact that the verse employed a term, devar, that can also mean: This is the statement of the cancellation, the Sages derived that the creditor must state that he cancels the debt, but he is allowed to accept the payment if the debtor insists on repaying.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabba explains what the person who loans the money can do to encourage the borrower to follow the script.

Rabba said: And the creditor is permitted to lift up (וְתָלֵי לֵיהּ) his eyes to him hopefully, demonstrating that he wishes to accept the payment, until the debtor says this, that he nevertheless wishes to repay him. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s statement from a baraita: When the debtor gives the creditor payment for a debt that has been canceled he should not say to him: I give this to you in payment of my debt; rather, he should say to him: This is my money and I give it to you as a gift. This indicates that the debt is repaid only by the initiative of the debtor. Rabba said to him: The creditor is permitted to lift up his eyes to him hopefully as well, until the debtor says this, that he gives it as a gift, but the initiative may come from the creditor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The lifting of the eyes according to many commentators means that the one who loans money stares at the person’s purse to hint that he wants his money back. (Ramban Rosh, Riyba,Meiri, and others) However, other commentators hold that you can actually hang the person upside down until he says “Nevertheless, I want to give you the money.” (Rashi)

 

Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Where do we turn when frightened? #parashatShelaklekha#parashathashavua#devartorah

“I’m really scared.” This was the poignant note a teenager posted to friends on Facebook as she told them of some upcoming medical tests. She was facing hospitalization and a series of procedures in a city three hours from home and anxiously awaited as doctors tried to discover the source of some serious medical problems she was experiencing

In this week’s Torah portion, Shelakh Lekha, the Israelites were really scared. 10 of the 12 spies Moses sent out to scout the land came back with a dispiriting that the Israelites couldn’t conquer the land. Upon hearing this news the Israelites “broke into loud cries, and the people wept that night.” (Numbers 14:1) Joshua and Caleb, the remaining two spies, tried to assuage their fears saying, “…have no fear then of the people of the country… (for) the Lord is with us. Have no fear!” (Numbers 14:9) Unfortunately Israelites did not listen to Joshua and Caleb and threaten to pelt them with stones. (Numbers 14:10) 

Who of us has not felt similar fears when facing unwanted life events that are truly frightening? And where can we turn for help? What comfort can we find from our Bible to give us courage in these kinds of situations?

The reality that God will go with us through our trial can help us to hope. Isaiah 41:13 tells us, “For I am the Lord your God who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, ‘Do not fear; I will help you.’ ”

Through God’s unfailing presence and His peace, we can find the hope and help we need to endure situations in which we are really scared.

 

 

What’s bothering the husband? TB Gittin 29

A Mishna on today’s daf TB Gittin 29a seems to contradict a Mishna on daf TB Gittin 66a. “We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (66a): If the husband said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if he said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, then these people should write it and give it. The Gemara infers from the mishna: They themselves, yes, they should do so, but one whom they appoint as an agent may not do so.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Abaye and Rava solve the contradiction differently.

Abaye said: There, what is the reason that an agent may not be appointed? It is due to degradation of the husband, who does not want the matter to become known, and therefore they may not designate another agent. However, here, after he has already sent the bill of divorce, the husband is not particular that word not spread, and therefore the agent may designate another agent in his place.

Rava said: There is a different reason that in the case of the mishna (66a) the agent may not appoint another to write the bill of divorce; it is because of the fact that in the case there, the husband’s instructions are mere words, and verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Therefore, they cannot take their oral instructions and transfer them to another. In the case of the mishna here, the agent is able to give the physical bill of divorce to another agent and thereby transfer his agency.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What is the degradation that Abaye is alluding to? According to Rashi מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, the degradation was the fact that the husband is illiterate. Technically the husband has to write his own get. Because he does not want to have the word get around that he is incapable of writing, he does not want their original three people to subcontract the job out. Once the get it is written, he doesn’t care who or how many people have to deliver it.

Many Rishonim find Rashi’s answer forced. They prefer  Rabbeinu Hananiel’s solution. According to him, the husband is embarrassed that the marriage did not work out and he wants to divorce his wife. He does not want that word to get out until the get is written and delivered.

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Is he dead or alive? TB Gittin 28

Today’s daf TB Gittin 28 uses the concept of chazaka (חזקה) to explain the contradiction between the Mishnah and a baraita. Chazaka means presumption. On our daf it means the status quo.

“(The Mishna teaches) In the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman, and when he had left the husband was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive, and there is no concern that in the meantime he has died, thereby canceling the bill of divorce.

“(In the Gemara) Rava explains: They taught that this presumptive status exists only concerning an elderly man who has not reached his years of strength, i.e., the age of eighty[1], and an ordinary sick person, as the majority of sick people continue to live and recover from their illnesses. But if the husband was an elderly man who had reached his years of strength, or if he was moribund, then, as the majority of moribund people proceed to die, he does not have this presumptive status.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s statement from a baraita: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and left the husband when he was old, even one hundred years old, he gives the bill of divorce to the wife, based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation, and Rava’s statement is rejected. (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi ד"ה כֵּיוָן דְּאִיפְּלִיג  explains that until the age of 80 our presumption or chazaka isthe person is still alive. From age 80 to 90, this chazaka expires and you assume the person has died. The chazaka after the age of 90 is reinstituted. You have assume the person is still alive.

I don’t have to tell you that people are living longer. Visit the cemetery and you see on the older graves, people have died in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. We see on the newer graves that people have lived past their 80s and 90s. I have even known a couple of centenarians!

Nevertheless, our tradition teaches us how we live our lives is more important than how long our lives are. Now would be a good time to review two sugiyot we have previously learned.

“The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that the students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To what do you attribute your longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself; rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.

“Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: And I did not think about matters of Torah in filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits without engaging in Torah and without donning phylacteries; and I would not fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and I would not rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and I would not call my colleague by his nickname. And some say that he said: I would not call my colleague by his derogatory family name.

Ҥ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those fine deeds that Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not remember what he did in his youth, but the deeds of his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage [guharka], and he would survey the entire city. And he would command that every unstable wall be torn down, lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. If its owner was able to build another, Rav Huna would instruct him to rebuild it. And if he was unable to rebuild it, Rav Huna would build it himself with his own money.

“Rafram bar Pappa further relates: And every Shabbat eve, in the afternoon, Rav Huna would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners who sold their crops, and throw them into the river. The Gemara asks: But why did he throw out the vegetables? Let him give them to the poor. The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would sometimes rely on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, and they would not come to purchase any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: And let him throw them to the animals. The Gemara answers: He holds that human food may not be fed to animals, as this is a display of contempt for the food.

“The Gemara objects: But if Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should not purchase the vegetables at all. The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, you would have been found to have caused a stumbling block for them in the future. If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them 

“Another custom of Rav Huna was that when he had a new medicine, he would fill a water jug with the medicine and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take from this new medicine. And there are those who say: He had a remedy against the demon Shivta that he knew by tradition, that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. And to this end, he would place a water jug and hang it by the door, saying: Anyone who needs, let him come to the house and wash his hands, so that he will not be in danger.” (TB Ta’anit 20a, Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: To what do you attribute your longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut [kappendarya] through a synagogue. Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never lifted my hands for the Priestly Benediction without first reciting a blessing.”(Sotah 39a, Sefaria.org translation)

Instead of only asking God to add years to our life, we should want to add life to our years.

 

 



[1] “Years of strength” is based on the verse in Psalm 90:10 “The span of our life is seventy years,
or, given the strength, eighty years;

Monday, June 12, 2023

Who were the rabbis thinking of when they made the ordinance? TB Gittin 26

There are two components to every document. There is the standardize language of the document (the tofes- טוֹפֶס ) and the specific unique content of the document (the toref- תּוֹרֶף) like the names of the parties mentioned therein. The Mishnah on daf TB Gittin 26 teaches “With regard to a scribe who writes the standard part [tofes] of bills of divorce in advance, so that when one requests a bill of divorce, he will need to add only the details unique to this case, he must leave empty the place in the bill of divorce for the name of the man, and the place for the name of the woman, and the place for the date… This is necessary due to the (rabbinic-gg) ordinance”  

The reason for this rabbinic ordinance is ambiguous.  The Gemara provides 3 different answers (really four since the third is explained in two ways) why this rabbinic ordinance was enacted.

1.    Rabbi Yonatan says: Due to the ordinance for the benefit of a scribe, i.e., to enable a scribe to write the standard part of a document in advance so that when a customer arrives he will not need to write the document hurriedly.”

2.    Rabbi Shabbetai says that Ḥizkiyya says: The ordinance mentioned in the mishna was not instituted for the benefit of scribes, allowing them to prepare the standard part of bills of divorce in advance. The ordinance was instituted due to the desire to prevent a quarrel, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and there is no need for the bill of divorce to be written for the sake of the woman. He continues to explain the ordinance: And by right it should have been that the scribe would be permitted to write even the essential part of the bill of divorce as well. But sometimes there might be a wife who hears the scribe who by chance is writing in advance a bill of divorce with her name, and she thinks that her husband told him to write the bill of divorce on his behalf, and she will have a quarrel with him. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the scribe may not write the essential part of the bill of divorce in advance, as it includes the names of the husband and the wife.”

3.    Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: The reason for the ordinance is due to the desire to provide a remedy for deserted wives.” Rabbi Meir hope for marriage reconciliation while Rabbi Elazar was afraid of a deserted wife who could not marry another man.

 

a.     “During  Talmudic times, marriage for woman was her best option. She had a structure that provided her needs. Rabbi Meir was afraid that in a fit of anger the husband would divorce his wife and leave her in a bad situation. “Rabbi Meir, who said: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce; and by right it should have been that the scribe would be permitted to write, in advance, even the essential part of the bill of divorce as well. But sometimes there could be a situation when the husband has a quarrel with his wife and becomes angry with her, and he might throw the bill of divorce to her and desert her and leave her divorced because he possessed a bill of divorce that had been prepared in advance. The Sages therefore instituted that a complete bill of divorce may not be prepared in advance to ensure that it would take time for the husband to obtain one, in the hope that he would calm down in the interim and reconsider.”

 

b.    Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce; and by right it should have been that scribes would not be permitted to write in advance even the standard part of the bill of divorce as well, due to a decree lest they come to write the essential part in advance. But sometimes the husband needs to travel to a country overseas, and he will not find a scribe who can write the bill of divorce for him, and he will abandon her and go and desert her and leave her in this position. The Sages instituted that scribes may write the standard part of the bill of divorce in advance, so that they can finish it quickly by simply adding the essential part.”

 

The rabbinic ordinance was written either for the scribe to make his work load easier or to reduce strife between husband and wife or to protect a woman from finding herself divorced after a bitter argument or becoming an abandon woman (agunah- עַגוּנָה) because a scribe could not be found.

Which explanation do you like best?

 

All quotes are from Sefaria.org translation

 

A lost and then found get. TB Gittin 27

Today’s daf TB Gittin 27 deals with the question of a lost get. What do you do when the lost get after it is found? The Mishnah teaches: “With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce” (Sefaria.org translation) The underlying concern is whether the get was written specifically for people named therein (leshmah-לשמה).

However, another Mishna in TB Baba Metzia teaches that the get may be returned even after a long period of time. “The mishna teaches that if a bill of divorce was lost before being received by the woman it is invalid unless it was found immediately. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Metzia 18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission, wills [dayetikei], deeds of gifts, or receipts, this finder should not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided that he would not give them. One could infer from this mishna as follows: But if the writer said: Give these found documents to the intended recipient, one gives them, and this is true even if a long time passed since they were lost, and there is no concern that perhaps this document belongs to someone else with the same name.”  (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara then provides three different solutions to reconcile the two mishnayot.

1.    Rabba’s solution contains two necessary conditions to be fulfilled if the get is to be delivered after a long period of time. The recovered get must not be found in a place of heavy traffic and secondly there can’t be more than one person in the city with the name found in the get. Rabbi Zeira’ position is identical to Rabba’s solution.

2.    Rabbi Yirmeya solution simply says the  get may be delivered after a long period of time is when the witnesses who signed the get testify they have only signed one get with the name contained therein.

3.    Rav Ashi says the get may be delivered after a long period of time is when there is a clear-cut distinguishing mark on the get. An example of a clear-cut mark on the get is when the witness with testify that there is a hole by a specific letter.

The Mishnah never delineates how long is a long period of time. The Gemara presents five different opinions. Remember our sages did not have timepieces to give the exact time how long a period of time the Mishna was referring to.

“§ The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce immediately, it is valid, but if not, then it is invalid. The Sages taught: What is considered not immediately? Rabbi Natan says: It is when there was a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take for a caravan to pass by and camp there. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no fixed amount of time; rather, it is within the category of immediately as long as there will be a person that stands and sees that no other person passed there. And some say that he said: It is as long as no person stopped there. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is within the category of immediately if there was not a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is equivalent not to the amount of time needed write the bill of divorce, but equivalent to the amount of time it would take to read it. Others say: It is equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write it and to read it.

 

 

Friday, June 9, 2023

May a blind person deliver a get? TB Gittin 23

According to the Mishnah on TB Gittin 23 a blind person may not deliver a get. “Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.” (Sefaria.org translation). Logic dictates that a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor may not deliver a get because they are not halakhicly competent. A gentile may not deliver a get because our laws of marriage and divorce don’t apply to him. Why can’t a blind person deliver a get? Certainly, he is a competent person.

The Gemara limits the case of a blind person mentioned in the Mishna when a get is delivered from outside the land of Israel because the blind person cannot say “The get was written and signed before me.”

There’s an interesting conversation between Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef whether a blind person deliver a get that originates in the land of Israel. What makes the conversation even more interesting is the fact that both Rav Sheshet and Rav Yehudah were blind. Rav Sheshet argues that a blind person may not deliver a get while Rav Yehudah permits.

Rav Sheshet says: Because he does not know from whom he takes it and to whom he gives it, and since he is unaware of this he will not be able to testify about it.

"Rav Yosef objects to this: If there is a concern that a blind person cannot distinguish between different people, then how is a blind man permitted to have sexual relations with his wife? How does he know that she is in fact his wife? Similarly, how are all people permitted to have sexual relations with their wives at night? If it is dark, they cannot see them. Rather, you must say that they are permitted through voice recognition [teviut eina dekala]. They can recognize each other based on their voices. Here too, with regard to a blind person, he can recognize the giver and receiver of the bill of divorce through voice recognition.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam decides the case thusly. “A blind person may not bring a get from the diaspora, because he is unable to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Accordingly, if [the get] was written and signed in his presence while he possessed the power of sight, and he became blind afterwards, he may say in the presence of three [men]: "It was written and signed in my presence," and give [the get] to her.” A blind person may not bring a get from the diaspora, because he is unable to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Accordingly, if [the get] was written and signed in his presence while he possessed the power of sight, and he became blind afterwards, he may say in the presence of three [men]: "It was written and signed in my presence," and give [the get] to her. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Divorce, chapter 7 halakha 19)

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Squawking or nonsquawking? The choice is ours. #Beha'alotekha#parashathashavua#devarTorah

Who hasn’t flown on a flight when young children or babies are crying! I read where a person was seated behind two small children who were not happy about being on a plane. Their cries of complaint filled the cabin.Just before takeoff, a flight attendant stopped next to them and said with a big smile, “What is all this squawking up here?” After charming the fussy 3-year-old and his younger sister for a few minutes, the flight attendant bent down and whispered very seriously, “I must remind you, this is a nonsquawking flight.”

The little ones became unbelievably quiet. That made everyone feel better. It’s a long journey when you have to sit in the squawking section.Once I asked an assembly of day school students what we Jews are good at. They gave me a lot of good answers except the one I was looking for based on this week’s Torah portion of Beha’aotekha. We Jews are good at complaining. Despite the fact that God provided the miraculous manna for them, “The rift raft in their midst felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, ‘If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, onions, and the garlic. Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to. ’” (Numbers 11: 4-6) To say the least, Moses wasn’t please, and he complained to God “Where am I to get meat to give to all these people, when they whine before me and say,’ give us to meat to eat!” (Numbers 11:13)

I’m sure God would like to remind all of us every morning that He wants this day to be a nonsquawking flight. We should try to do all things without complaining and disputing. If we went through each day without complaining, how would it affect our family and friends?

Squawking or nonsquawking? The choice is ours.

 

The three major stages of tanning a skin to make parchment TB Gittin 22

 One may write a get on anything even a grape leaf, a cow’s horn, and a Canaanite slave’s hand (remember I’m not advocating slavery at all. Just the opposite). We have to understand that a slave was consider property in the eyes of the rabbis. Since the slave was property, the master could write the get on his hand and then give the slave to the wife he is divorcing. Rambam writes: “A get may be written on any substance, even a substance from which one is forbidden to benefit. We may write [a get] on a substance on which an erasure would not be noticed, provided it is given [to the woman] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer.

"What is implied? If a get is written on paper with erasures, on parchment that has not been fully processed, on a shard, on leaves, on the arm of a servant or on the horn of a cow, [it is acceptable, provided the husband] gives [his wife] the servant, the cow, the paper, the parchment or the like in the presence of witnesses.” (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Laws of Divorce, chapter 4, halakha 2and 3.)

From my understanding, the ex-wife now owns the slave or the cow.

Obviously, parchment is the best material for a scribe to write get upon. Today’s daf TB Gittin 22 distinguishes three major steps in processing the skin of the animal to make it parchment.

“The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that one may not write a bill of divorce on a material that enables forgery. Consequently, one may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara now clarifies what is defined as unfinished leather. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides. At each stage, the hide has a different name: Matza, ḥifa, and diftera.

Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts…

Ḥifa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts.

Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts….” (Sefaria.org translation)

After soaking the animal skin to remove the meat from it, the skin is then soaked in saltwater and today other chemicals are added to this first stage of tanning the skin. The second stage consists of soaking the skin in water that has flour in it. As the leavening flour helps the tanning process. Soaking the skin in a gallnut solution is the final stage that creates parchment a scribe can write upon.

A gallnut is produced by oak trees as a defense against parasitic wasps who deposit their eggs in small punctures they make on young branches. The tree excretes a tannin-rich substance that hardens and forms a gallnut. These are collected and ground to be used in dyeing.” (https://www.google.com/search?q=gallnuts&sxsrf=APwXEdcchptmTKgqfbHPyd9fBqPFFRFyEA%3A1686170602675&ei=6uuAZMbNKMqo5NoP7qSCyAk&ved=0ahUKEwjG6rX-grL_AhVKFFkFHW6SAJkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=gallnuts&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIECAAQHjILCAAQHhAPEPEEEAoyCAgAEB4QDxAKMgYIABAeEA8yBggAEAUQHjIGCAAQHhAPMggIABAeEA8QCjoHCCMQigUQJzoECCMQJzoTCC4QigUQsQMQgwEQxwEQ0QMQQzoHCAAQigUQQzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6BwguEIoFEEM6EAguEIoFELEDEMcBENEDEEM6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOg0ILhCKBRDlBBDUAhBDOgoILhCKBRDlBBBDOgoIABCKBRCxAxBDOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARCvAToICAAQgAQQsQM6BQguEIAEOgcIABCABBAKOgoILhCABBDUAhAKOhMILhCABBCXBRDcBBDeBBDfBBgBSgQIQRgAUABYsxVgqRloAHABeACAAY0BiAH7BZIBAzUuM5gBAKABAcABAdoBBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)

Parchment is called klaf in Hebrew.  A scribe will use klaf for writing a Torah, tefillin, and mezzuzot. In all the cases when I acted as a witness for the delivering of the  get, I don’t recall a scribe using klaf. It must be too expensive. The scribe uses heavy stock paper to write a get.