Money doesn’t grow on trees TB Kiddushin 17

When the court sells a person as an indentured servant as restitution for his crime, the Torah requires the master to give him severance pay at the end of the six years of servitude. “If a fellow Hebrew man—or woman—is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which your God יהוה has blessed you.” (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 17 discusses what is the minimum amount of severance pay the master must provide. “The Sages taught: How much does one grant a freed slave as a severance gift? It is five sela in value of each and every type mentioned in this verse: “And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress” (Deuteronomy 15:14), which is a total of fifteen sela. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is given thirty sela in total, like the thirty shekels of the fine that is paid for a slave (when an ox gores another person’s Canaanite slave-gg, see Exodus 21:32). Rabbi Shimon says: The master gives him fifty shekels, like the sum of valuations, in which fifty shekels is the largest designated amount for a man (when a person wishes to donates his value to the Temple -gg, see Leviticus 27:3).” (Sefaria.org translation)

The logic behind Rabbi Mei’s severance pay requirement makes a lot of sense because it explains why the verse adds the three qualifiers “out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat” to the command “do not let him go empty-handed.” The Gemara then explains how Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon explain this seemingly extraneous qualifiers.

“The Gemara answers: These terms are necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one grants severance gifts only from the flock, the threshing floor, and the winepress; from where is it derived to include every matter? The verse states: “Of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:14). If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “flock,” “threshing floor,” and “winepress”? This serves to tell you that just as a flock, a threshing floor, and a winepress are unique in that they are included in the category of blessing, i.e., they grow and multiply, so too all items that are included in the category of blessing may be given as a severance gift. This excludes money, which does not increase on its own. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: This excludes mules, which cannot reproduce.”

The common denominator of “out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat” is all three things biologically grow. According to Rabbi Shimon these examples exclude money as part of the severance package because as we all know money doesn’t grow on trees. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov these examples exclude mules who by themselves can’t reproduce (they are the offspring of the horse and donkey mating). The Gemara provides the reason why each rabbi rejects the others exclusion. “The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, why does he exclude money but not mules? The Gemara answers: With regard to mules, their bodies grow and enhance. Although they do not reproduce, they still grow. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, why doesn’t he exclude money? He maintains that one can conduct business with money and thereby profit from it. In this manner money can increase.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Interesting, Rashi only provides Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s position in his commentary on this verse in the Humash.“They have the characteristic that they come under the term of “blessing”, (i.e. they possess the power of propagating) so, too, you are obliged to furnish him only with such things that come under the term “blessing”, thus excluding mules, (because they are sterile) (Sifrei Devarim 119:3; Kiddushin 17a).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam rules according to Rabbi Shimon. “Give him a generous severance gift from your sheep, your threshing floor and your vat as God has blessed you." By mentioning sheep, a threshing floor and a vat, the verse indicates that the servant must be given objects that will naturally increase and generate blessing as a severance gift. He need not, however, be given money or garments.” (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kinyan, Laws of Slaves, 3:14, Sefaria.org translation) Rambam also sets the minimum severance gift to be 30 sela for the halakha always follows Rabbi Yehuda in a disagreement with Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. (Ibid, see the Kesef Mishneh)

 

How are you tending the garden of your heart? #parashatkitavo#devartorah#parashathashavua

The Secret Garden, a novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett, tells the story of Mary, a young girl who goes to live with her wealthy uncle Archibald on his estate in England. Mary gets to know Dickon, a working-class boy who loves nature. The two children discover a fenced-in garden that Mary’s uncle has locked up because it reminds him of his deceased wife. The garden looks dead because of neglect, but Dickon assures Mary that, with proper tending, it will recover with new life. With the children’s help, “the secret garden” eventually bursts forth with colorful, fragrant blooms.

All of us have a secret garden of the heart. How we tend it will determine what speech and behavior it produces. Proverbs wisely admonishes us: “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). The word keep means “to watch or guard with fidelity.” Guarding what we take into our hearts and monitoring our response will determine what takes root there. As we remove the thorns of resentment, weeds of lust, and roots of bitterness, we can replace them with the fruit from our Jewish heritage: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

This week’s Torah portion Ki Tavo contains the tokhakha which enumerates the consequences of our actions. Our actions will determine whether blessings or curses will rain down upon us. What a wonderful reminder what will determine whether the new year 5784 will be a good one or not. As you are preparing for our High Holidays, how are you tending the garden of your heart?

Not quite his own man TB Kiddushin 16

Describing an eved evri-עֶבֶד עִבְרִ I wrote “an eved evri is not really a slave for the master doesn’t own him at all. The eved evri is an indentured servant.” That statement is mostly true, but not altogether correct based on Rava’s statement found in today’s daf TB Kiddushin 16.

“A tanna taught: And a slave can acquire himself with money, with an item worth money, and with a document.” (Sefaroia.org translation) We understand that an eved evri can acquire himself with money or an item worth money he owes the master, but what type of document is the baraita describing? It can’t be an IOU note because that’s the same as an item worth money. Consequently, the document must be a document of manumission.

Why would the eved evri need a document manumission if it’s not a slave, but an indentured servant? “The Gemara asks: Why do I need a document for this purpose? Let him say in the presence of two witnesses: Go free. Alternatively, let him say before a court: Go free. Rava says: That is to say that the body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and this is not merely a monetary debt. And in the case of a master who relinquishes his deduction, i.e., the money that the slave must return for the years he has not yet served, his deduction is not relinquished. Although one can relinquish a monetary debt verbally, this is insufficient to release a slave whose body is owned by his master. A document is required to effect his freedom.” (Sefrai.org translation)

Rav Hai Gaon deduces a general principle from our Gemara. A person can only sell something that is concrete. Selling one’s labor is not concrete; consequently, a person must sell his body for the purpose of the labor.

Perhaps the eved evri is not his own man completely since he may be paired up with a Canaanite maidservant for the purpose of breeding which a free Jew is forbidden.

 

  

Three categories of slavery during the rabbinic period TB Kiddushin 14

The Mishnah on daf TB Kiddushin 14 begins the discussion of acquiring and releasing a Hebrew slave (eved evri-עֶבֶד עִבְרִ). “A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document, and he can acquire himself, i.e., he is emancipated, through years, i.e., when he completes his six years of labor, or through the advent of the Jubilee Year, or through the deduction of money. The slave can redeem himself during the six years by paying for his remaining years of slavery. A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. A slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl, and he acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year or through the death of the master.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are two types of slaves. The first is a Canaanite slave. The master owns the Canaanite slave.  The Canaanite slave remains a Gentile; however, he is obligated to observe all the negative commandments in the Torah. An eved evri is not really a slave for the master doesn’t own him at all. The eved evri is an indentured servant. He is Jewish and is obligated to observe all the commandments with one glaring exception. A Hebrew maidservant (eved evriya- עֶבֶד עִבְרִיָה) has one more mode of emancipation.

The subject of an eved evri appears in three different parashiyot in the Torah, Mishpatim (found in the book of Exodus), Behar (found in the book of Leviticus), and Re-eh (found in the book of Deuteronomy). There are two categories of an eved evri. The first category is when the court sells him in order that he make restitution for his wrong; the second category is when he sells himself because he finds himself in dire straits.

Because there are two categories of an eved evri, there are different halakhic outcomes due to a close reading of various verses. The Gemara enumerates them. “One who sells himself may not be pierced with an awl, whereas one who is sold by the court may be pierced with an awl. One who sells himself is not granted a severance gift by his master when he is emancipated, whereas one who is sold by the court is granted a severance gift. With regard to one who sells himself, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant as a wife to produce slave children, whereas with regard to one sold by the court, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.” Sefaria. org translation)

Only when the eved evri is sold by the court, may the master provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. This is the glaring exception I alluded to above. The Torah forbids an Israelite to marry a Canaanite, but gives permission for master to give his Canaanite maidservant to his eved evri. When the eved evri goes free, the Canaanite maidservant and all the children born unto them, remains slaves and do not go out with him. We only can assume that this match was for the purpose of breeding more slaves.

Everyone of us is an influencer #parashatKiTetze#parashathashavua#devartorah

A few years before he became the 26th U.S. president (1901–1909), Theodore Roosevelt got word that his oldest son, Theodore Jr., was ill. While his son would recover, the cause of Ted’s illness hit Roosevelt hard. Doctors told him that he was the cause of his son’s illness. Ted was suffering from “nervous exhaustion,” having been pressed unmercifully by Theodore to become the “fighter” hero-type he himself had not been during his own frail childhood. Upon hearing this, the elder Roosevelt made a promise to relent: “Hereafter I shall never press Ted either in body or mind.”

The father was true to his word. From then on he paid close attention to how he treated his son—the very same son who would one day bravely lead the landing of Allied soldiers on Utah Beach in World War II. 

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Tetzei begins with a law defining minimum appropriate behavior of soldiers vis a vis women civilians.  “When you take the field against your enemies…and you take some of them captives and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you would take her to wife…she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your house lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her…;” (Dt. 21:10-13)

The Ba’al Shem Tov, the founder the modern Hasidic movement, interprets this verse for us differently as we prepare ourselves for the upcoming High Holidays.    He asks: “Who is our greatest enemy?   His answer: it’s the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. We must battle it with the same amount of cunning, strategy, and determination that we would channel against a mortal enemy.”

God has entrusted each of us with influence in the lives of others. We have a deep responsibility in those relationships, not only to spouses and children, but to friends, employees, and customers. The yetzer hara tempts us to press too hard, to demand too much, to force progress, or to orchestrate success and this can lead us to harm others even when we don’t realize it.  

As we approach the High Holidays trying to become the people we truly want to be in this New Year, know that we can succeed in all these worthy endeavors for the Torah emphasizes ultimate victory over our yetzer hara as it is written: “and the Lord your God delivers them into your power….” (Dt. 21:10)

Although permitted by the Torah, Rav instituted lashes as a punishment TB Kiddushin 12

If you follow my daily blog on dafyomi, you have noticed that I did not write anything concerning the dappim TB Kiddushin 9-10. The major topic on these pages was effecting kiddushin with the method of sexual intercourse (בִיאָה-be-ah). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagreed what was the Torah source of this method of kiddushin. The ensuing discussion is for mature audiences only. I just didn’t know how to write something discussed delicately enough for publication.

Even though the Torah permits this sexual intercourse for the purposes of kiddushin, Rav on today’s daf TB Kiddushin 12 punished people who exhibited this kind of extremely inappropriate behavior.

“Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.

And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.

“And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged” (Sefaria.org translation)

Not only do we have a problem understanding why some of these behaviors are worthy of the punishment of lashes, the Gemara relates that the Sages of Neharde’a had a limited tradition what Rav considered highly inappropriate behavior.

“The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Tur and the Rosh limit the punishment of lashes to those men who would betrothed a woman through sexual intercourse.

 

Four explanations why Beit Shammai required a dinar TB Kiddushin 11

If a man is using money to effect kiddushin, the Mishnah records: “Beit Shammai say that she can be acquired with one dinar or with anything that is worth one dinar. ” (Sefaria.org translation) Daf TB Kiddushin provides four alternative explanations why Beit Shammai chooses a larger amount than Beit Hillel.

Explanation #1 “Rabbi Zeira says: Their reasoning is that a woman is particular about herself and considers it beneath her dignity to be acquired with a paltry sum, and therefore she will not agree to be betrothed with less than one dinar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Explanation #2 “Rav Yosef said a different explanation: The reasoning of Beit Shammai is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: Every sum of money mentioned in the Torah is in Tyrian coinage, i.e., dinars from Tyre, which have a high value. And any amount of money set by rabbinic law is measured by provincial coinage. Local currency, i.e., that which existed at the time of the Sages of the Mishna, was worth about one-eighth of the value of Tyrian coinage. Beit Shammai follow the standard sum of the Torah, and the smallest possible amount in Tyrian currency is the silver coin, which is worth one dinar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tyrian coinage was larger and heavier than provincial coinage; consequently, it had a greater value. “There were two types of coinage in Judaea during and after the Second Temple period: provincial and Tyrian. The provincial Sela or Shekel had an eighth of the value of the pure silver Tyrian currency[19]. The Talmud states that any specified amount of silver mentioned in the Torah is in Tyrian currency[20]. The value of the Tyrian currency was as follows: A sela is four dinar, a dinar is six ma'ah, known as gerah in the time of Moses[21]. This would mean that a Tyrian Shekel was worth four dinar, while a provincial Shekel was worth half a dinar. The value of the half Shekel Temple tax was thus two dinar or twelve ma’ah. This was due to the fixing of the value of the Shekel to the sela coin that was prevalent that had an increased value by one fifth compared to the value of the Shekel according to the law of Moses (ten ma’ah).” (https://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/blog/post.asp?aid=708481&PostID=65524&p=1)

Explanation #3 “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says a different explanation: The reasoning of Beit Shammai, that the minimum amount with which a woman can be betrothed is one dinar, is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiyya. As Ḥizkiyya says that the verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “Then he shall let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that she can deduct an amount from the price of her redemption and leave before her time of slavery is complete. If she comes into possession of money, she can pay the master for her value, less the work she has performed. Beit Shammai derive the halakhot of regular betrothal from the case of a Hebrew maidservant, as explained below.

“Granted, if you say that when she was acquired he gave her at least one dinar, this is the meaning of the statement that she may continually deduct from that amount up to one peruta. But if you say that he gave her one peruta when he purchased her as a maidservant, can she deduct from one peruta? One peruta is already the smallest possible sum of money. The Gemara rejects this argument: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: In a case where he gave her one dinar, she deducts from that amount up to one peruta; in a case where he gave her one peruta she cannot deduct at all. If he paid one peruta for her, the option of redemption does not apply.” (Sefaria.org translation) (This explanation is rejected by the Gemara)

Explanation #4 (really on daf TB Kiddushin 12a) “Rava said a different explanation: This is the reasoning of Beit Shammai, who hold that a woman can be betrothed only with a minimum of one dinar: The daughters of Israel should not be treated like ownerless property. Allowing women to be betrothed with such a small amount as one peruta is disrespectful to them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The source where the ring may not have any precious stones on it TB Kiddushin 7-8

Rabba and Rav Yosef’s disagreement on dappim TB Kiddushin 7-8 has practical ramifications today.

“There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with silk [beshira’ei] garments. Rabba said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is not necessary, as they are certainly worth more than one peruta. Rav Yosef said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is necessary, and as the man did not determine the value of the silk garments before the betrothal, the betrothal is invalid. The Gemara comments: If he said to her that she should become betrothed to him by any amount, regardless of the value of the silk garments, everyone agrees that the garments do not require appraisal, as they are undoubtedly worth more than one peruta.

“Conversely, if he said to her that they are worth fifty dinars, and they are not worth fifty dinars, then everyone agrees that the betrothal is not valid, as they are not worth the amount he specified. They disagree when he said that they are worth fifty dinars, and in actuality they are worth fifty dinars. Rabba said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is not necessary before the betrothal, as they are worth fifty dinars. Rav Yosef said: An appraisal of the value of the garments is necessary, because the woman herself is not an expert in appraisal and she does not rely on his assessment. Since she is unsure if the garments are actually worth fifty dinars as he claimed, she does not agree to be betrothed.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The woman accepting the gift on the condition of kiddushin has to know the value of the gift. Because the woman is not expert appraiser, she might draw the wrong conclusions about her future husband. Based on her mistaken appraisal of the gift, she might think that her husband is richer than he actually is. When she finds out that he’s not as rich as she supposed, would she still have accepted the garment for the purpose of kiddushin? The whole marriage would be placed in doubt.

In the Tosefot TB Kiddushin 9a ד"ה והלכתא שיראי לא צריך שומא Rebbeinu Tam writes that women have a basic understanding of a garments worth; consequently, they know what they’re getting into and are betrothed. However when it comes to precious stones, the average person has no clue whether the stones are fake or real and if they are real how much are they really worth. Therefore there is a custom in Israel that the ring given to the bride for the purpose of kiddushin underneath the khupah may not have any precious stones on it. The ring needs to be a gold or silver ring whose value is easily understood. This is the custom in Israel to this very day. 

A gift given on the condition that it is returned is called a gift TB Kiddushin 6

Daf TB Kiddushin 6 is the source for the well-known halakha known by anybody who attends the holiday of Sukkot services. Before we recite hallel, each davener takes a lulav and etrog and waves them in the six different directions. Because the Torah says “וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הָרִאשׁ֗וֹן-On the first day you shall take” (Leviticus 23:40), the rabbis ruled that each person must own his/her lulav and etrog. He cannot borrow somebody else’s set.

Although everybody should come to the synagogue with his own set of lulav and etrog, not everybody does. How can a person who doesn’t own a lulav and etrog fulfill his obligation? The rabbis came up with a solution that when the owner of the lulav and etrog gives it to somebody as a gift with the condition he return it (מַתָּנָה עַל מְנָת לְהַחֲזִיר) after he has fulfilled the mitzvah. When he returns the lulav and etrog, the person has fulfilled this mitzvah.

The Gemara first records Rava’s statement.

“Rava says: With regard to one who says to another: Here are one hundred dinars for you that I am giving you on the condition that you return them to me, if he gave these one hundred dinars as part of a purchase, he does not acquire the item, as he has not given the seller any money. And similarly, with regard to a woman, if he gave her money for her betrothal on the condition that she return it, she is not betrothed. If one gave money in this manner for the redemption of his firstborn son, for which a priest must receive five sela, his son is not redeemed.

“If one does this with regard to teruma, i.e., he gives produce to a priest as teruma on the condition that it will be returned, he has technically fulfilled his obligation of giving. Once he gets the teruma back it belongs to him, as he is the original owner, and although it is prohibited for him to partake of it, as he is a non-priest, he may sell it to a different priest. But it is prohibited to do this, i.e., give teruma in this manner, ab initio, because this priest receiving the teruma appears like a priest who assists at the threshing floor, as he presumably agrees to this arrangement in return for some gain.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

Then the Gemara shows his inconsistency.

“The Gemara asks: What does Rava maintain? If he maintains that a gift given on the condition that it is returned is called a gift, this should apply not only to teruma but even to all the other cases, i.e., it should be considered a valid gift in all of the above cases. And if he maintains that a gift of this kind is not called a gift, then even with regard to teruma it should not be considered a legitimate form of giving.

“And furthermore, Rava is the one who says: A gift given on the condition that it is later returned is called a gift. As Rava said that if one says to another on the first day of the festival of Sukkot: Take this etrog on the condition that you return it to me, and the recipient takes it, recites a blessing over it, and returns it, he has fulfilled his obligation, despite the fact that one must own the etrog he uses for the mitzva on the first day of Sukkot. And if he does not return it he has not fulfilled his obligation, as he gave him the gift only on the condition that it would be returned. This indicates that in the opinion of Rava, a gift that is given on the condition that it is returned is considered a gift.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

Rav Ashi corrects Rava’s first statement and is corroborated by Rav Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya.

“Rather, Rav Ashi said: In all of these cases the gift is acquired, except for the betrothal of a woman, because a woman cannot be acquired by means of symbolic exchange. Rav Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: We say this in the name of Rava in accordance with your opinion, not in accordance with the previous ruling.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

When I speak to the couple before the wedding and tell them all the halakhot surrounding the ring the groom will give the bride underneath the khupah to the effect kiddshin, I remind him that he has to own the ring without any conditions. If there’s some family heirloom he wishes to use, the owner has to give it to him outright. He cannot give it to the bride on the condition that she return it to the original owner. The ring is hers to keep. However, if she chooses of her own free will to return it to the original home she can because it is hers free and clear.

What exactly is khupa (aka chupah)? Kiddushin 5

We know that there are two stages to marriage. The first stage is Kiddushin. We know already that Kiddushin can be effected by money, a document, or sexual intercourse. The second stage of marriage is Nesuin and it can be effected by khupah (חוּפָּה). Interestingly enough, the Gemara never defines what khupah is.

Rav Huna argues that khupah is a fourth way Kiddushin may be effected. “Rav Huna says: The ceremony of the wedding canopy effects acquisition of the woman, as is derived through an a fortiori inference…If money, which does not complete the acquisition of a woman, as a young woman remains under her father’s authority with regard to certain issues, nevertheless effects acquisition of her for the stage of betrothal, is it not logical that a wedding canopy, which completes the marriage, since it entirely removes a young woman from her father’s authority, can effect acquisition for betrothal on its own? ” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara goes on to show the weakness of Rav Huna’s position. The sugiyah ends with Rava’s attack on Rav Huna’s position and Abaye’s defense of it.

“Rava said: There are two refutations of this matter, i.e., it is possible to refute Rav Huna’s opinion in two ways. One opinion is that we learned in the mishna that a woman can be acquired through three modes of acquisition, and we did not learn that there are four modes. This indicates that there are no other ways to acquire a woman apart from the three listed in the mishna.

“And furthermore, Rava disagrees with the main point of the proof, which was based on the fact that a wedding canopy completes a marriage: Doesn’t entering a wedding canopy complete a marriage only by means of an act of betrothal, which precedes the wedding canopy? And can one derive that entering a wedding canopy effects acquisition without betrothal from the case of entering a wedding canopy that effects acquisition by means of betrothal? Consequently, entering a wedding canopy alone cannot effect a betrothal.

“Abaye said to Rava in response to his two claims: With regard to that which you said, that we learned in the mishna three modes and we did not learn that there are four modes, this is no proof, as the tanna teaches only a matter that is explicitly written in the Torah, and does not teach a matter that is not explicitly written in the Torah, such as a wedding canopy.

"And with regard to that which you said: Doesn’t entering a wedding canopy complete a marriage only by means of an act of betrothal, this is also what Rav Huna is saying, i.e., Rav Huna incorporates this claim into his reasoning: If money, which does not complete a marriage after money, i.e., after a woman has been betrothed through money an additional monetary gift cannot render her a fully married woman, effects acquisition of the woman in the form of betrothal, is it not logical that entering a wedding canopy, which is more powerful than money in that it completes a marriage after money, should effect acquisition and be used to perform betrothal by itself?”

The Rishonim provides three different definitions of khupah. The first is the one were most familiar with, a bridal canopy that the groom and bride stand underneath. A second possible definition is when the bride and groom are secluded together, but not having sexual intercourse. A third possible definition offered is the veiling ceremony which we call bedekin.

According to halakha khupah is not a method to enter into Kedushin rejecting Rav Huna’s position; nevertheless, Rebbeinu Hananiel argues that there’s a doubt whether khupah effects Kiddushin or not since Rav Huna’s position is never explicitly rejected in the Gemara.

Take the money and run Kiddushin 4

Although the first way the Mishnah teaches that a man can effect kiddushin is by money, this method is not explicitly mentioned the Torah. Where do the rabbis learn this law? Yesterday’s daf and today’s daf TB Kiddushin 4 cite two different verses which provides the source of this method. The second source is much more straightforward. It provides the contextual definition of the word “take.”

“§ The Gemara notes: And a tanna cites the halakha that a woman can be betrothed with money from here, a different source. As it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1), in this verse, the term taking is only with money. And so it says: “I will give money for the field; take it from me” (Genesis 23:13).” (Sefaria.org translation) The field is the field and the cave of Makhpela which Abraham bought as a burial plot for Sarah and ultimately the rest of his family.

  

Too quick to judge others #parashatshoftim#devartorah#parashathashavua

There was once a widowed trapper who lived deep in the Alaskan wilderness with his 2 year old son. On one occasion their food supplies had run out and the trapper was forced to go and catch some more food. The weather outside was so fierce he reluctantly decided to leave his son behind, entrusted to the care of his faithful dog. While outdoors the weather had got even more violent and the trapper was forced to take refuge overnight in a stand of trees.

When the trapper returned the next morning, he got to the cabin to find the door open and the furniture overturned. A fierce struggle had taken place. There was no sign of his son and his dog lay in the corner looking at him guiltily, with blood all over his mouth. The trapper was deeply distressed, and quickly figured out what had happened. The dog, without food, had turned on his son and killed him. Gathering his axe from his side in a fury the trapper killed his dog.

He then set about searching furiously for some sign of his son. There was still a faint chance his son was alive. As the trapper frantically searched he heard a familiar cry, coming from under the bed. He tipped the bed up to discover his son. He was unharmed, without a scratch or drop of blood upon him. The trapper, flooded with relief, gathered his son in his arms. When he turned around he saw a dead wolf, lying in the corner of the cabin. Then the trapper realized why his faithful dog had been covered in blood. It was the one who had saved his son.

How often we can be like that trapper, quickly assuming to know the truth about a person when in reality our judgements are terribly off mark. 

This week’s Torah portion begins with the verse, “Judges and police you shall place for yourself.” (Dt. 16:18) “Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Pashischo commented: Make for yourselves judges and police, that is, before you go and make judgments about other people, judge yourself first. As the Sages (Bava Batra 60b) have said, ‘First correct yourself and only then correct others.’ (cited in Otzer Chayim)” (Growth through Torah by Rabbi Zellig Plishkin, page 424)

Too often judging others is easier than looking at ourselves in the mirror and seeing our own shortcomings.  Perhaps we should add a new Al Chet to the Yom Kippur liturgy, “For the sin we have committed for condemning in others what we also do while justifying our own actions.”

 

Three, why not four? TB Kiddushin 3

Whenever a Mishna enumerates a specific number, the Gemara wants to know what’s excluded. The first Mishna teaches “A woman is acquired by, i.e., becomes betrothed to, a man to be his wife in three ways…She is acquired through money, through a document, and through sexual intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation) Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 3 wants to know what is our Mishna excluding. “The Gemara answers: The number serves to exclude acquisition through symbolic exchange (khalifin- חֲלִיפִין, ) i.e., a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. Although a woman can be betrothed by means of money or an item of monetary value, she is not betrothed if she is given an item by symbolic exchange.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi explains why this symbolic exchange is unacceptable. Since the symbolic exchange can be worth less than a prutah, no self-respecting woman would agree to any form of symbolic exchange in order to enter into the first stage of marriage, kedushin. Rashi’s grandson Rebbeinu Tam raises problems with his grandfather’s explanation. What happens if the woman is willing to accept a symbolic exchange that is less than a prutah? The rishonim come up with two basic answers to Rebbein Tam’s question. Some teach that even though one specific woman may be willing to accept a symbolic exchange that is less than a prutah, her example is not strong enough precedent to accept symbolic exchanges. Others explain that since a symbolic exchange can be less than a prutah, it is excluded completely from the category of money.

How a woman’s status changes TB Kedushin 2

Today we begin the massekhet Kedushin and it’s the last massekhet in Seder Nashim. Kedushin is poorly translated as betrothal or engagement. In reality it is the first stage of marriage. If a man mekadesh (the verb form of kedushin) a woman, he must give his wife a get when he wants to divorce her. If a woman has an adulterous affair while she is mekudeshet, she will suffer the penalties outlined in the Torah. The second stage of marriage is nessuin.

As an introduction to our brand-new massekhet, let me quote the Rambam.

“Before the Torah was given, when a man would meet a woman in the marketplace and he and she decided to marry, he would bring her home, conduct relations in private and thus make her his wife. Once the Torah was given, the Jews were commanded that when a man desires to marry a woman, he must acquire her as a wife in the presence of witnesses. [Only] after this, does she become his wife. This is [alluded to in Deuteronomy 22:13]: "When a man takes a wife and has relations with her...."

“This process of acquisition fulfills [one of] the Torah's positive commandments. The process of acquiring a wife is formalized in three ways: through [the transfer of] money, through [the transfer of a] formal document and through sexual relations. [The effectiveness of] sexual relations and [the transfer of a] formal document have their origin in the Torah [itself], while [the effectiveness of transfer of] money is Rabbinic in origin.

This process of acquisition is universally referred to as erusin ("betrothal") or

kiddushin ("consecration"). And a woman who is acquired in any of these three ways is referred to as mekudeshet or me'ureset.” (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Marriage, Chapter 1 Halakha 1-2, Sefaria.org translation)

The first Mishna of our  massekhet uses the phrase הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית (ha-esha neknait) and is usually translated as the woman is acquired. This sounds harsh to our modern ears because it seems that the woman is an object to be acquired. Although women did not have the same status as a man, she still was her own person. Perhaps a better translation of נִקְנֵית is “the status of a woman changes (from a single woman to a married woman).”

Today’s daf TB Kiddushin 2 reaffirms the idea that the woman is not an object to be acquired because she has to agree to become mekudeshet. The Gemara explains why the Mishnah chooses to begin with the feminine a woman becomes נִקְנֵית and not a man who קוֹנָה a woman.

“And if you wish, say instead another explanation. If the mishna had taught: The man acquires the woman, I would say that he can acquire her even against her will, as indicated by the expression: He acquires. One might have assumed that the betrothal depends on the husband, without the need for the woman’s consent. Therefore the mishna taught: The woman is acquired, from which it may be inferred that with her consent, yes, he can acquire her as a wife, but when he acts without her consent, no, she is not betrothed to him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

A baby's first steps and God's infinite love #parashatreeh#Devartorah#parashathashavua

I remember when our children called us with some exciting news and then spent 10 minutes describing for us the first steps of our 1-year-old grandchild. He could walk! Later I realized how bizarre we might have sounded to an eavesdropper. Most people can walk. What was the big deal?

It struck me that childhood provides a quality of specialness that nearly vanishes for the rest of life. Thinking about our treatment of children gave me further appreciation for the fact that God chooses the word picture of “children” to describe our relationship with Him. In this week’s Torah portion God says, “You are children of the Lord your God …”A children of God, each of us has infinite value in His eyes. I imagine God views each halting step forward in everybody’s spiritual “walk” with the eagerness of a parent watching a child take that very first step.

Perhaps when the secrets of the universe are finally revealed, we will learn an underlying purpose of watching children grow. It may be that God has granted us these times of specialness to awaken us to His infinite love. Once we feel God’s infinite love we can respond to it with loving God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our might.

The new month of Elul, which we announced this Shabbat, and this bond of love between the Holy One and us, encourage us to prepare for our High Holy days and become the people we truly want to be as we continue on our life’s journey.

For different levels of severity TB Gittin 86

 

To appreciate and understand today’s daf TB Gittin 86, we have to distinguish between the four different levels of severity when it comes to a get. Going from the least severe to the most severe case.

1.    The get is not a good get rabbinically, but after the fact (בּבְּדִּיעֲבַד), she may marry based on this get and her children of the second marriage are kasher.

2.    The get is not a good get and she should not marry based upon it; however, if she does marry another man, she doesn’t have to divorce him and the children are kasher.

3.    The get is not a good get and she can’t marry anybody based upon it. If she does marry somebody anyway, she is forced to divorce her second husband, but her children are kasher.

4.    The get is not a good get and she can’t marry anybody based upon it. She is forced to divorce her second husband and her children are mamzerim.

Essential elements in a get TB Gittin 85

 We have covered lots of unusual circumstances surrounding the get and there are only five more dappim in our massekhet. We have previously learned that the exact correct names of the husband and wife, location, and date are necessary for a get to be kosher. Finally on today’s daf TB Gittin 85 we learn the basic essential elements of a get. “MISHNA: The basic, essential, element of a bill of divorce is: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is also another essential sentence: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Abaye lists the correct spelling other words in order to make clear that this is a bill of divorce for a specific woman. “The Gemara relates several rulings concerning the precise terminology to be used in writing a bill of divorce. Abaye said: This person who writes a bill of divorce should not write the word meaning: And this, by spelling it vav, dalet, yod, nun, as that can be misread as having the vowel of a ḥirik under the letter dalet, not a tzeire. Read with a ḥirik, it indicates: And there is a law that we should get divorced. Rather, he should make sure to write the word meaning: And this, without a yod, so that it is clear that it should be read with a tzeire.

וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״אִיגֶּרֶת״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע (אִיגֶּרֶת) [אִיגָּרָא]; אֶלָּא ״אִגֶּרֶת״. וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״לִימְהָךְ״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע לִי מֵהָךְ; וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״לִמְחָךְ״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע כִּי חוּכָא.

“And he should not write the word meaning: A letter, by spelling it alef, yod, gimmel, reish, tav, as that can be confused with another identically spelled word that indicates a roof. Rather, he should write the word meaning: A letter, without a yod. And he should not write: To go, by spelling it lamed, yod, mem, heh, khaf, as that could be read as a conjunction which indicates: For me from this. And he should be sure not to write limḥakh, i.e., he must be careful that the letter heh not look like a ḥet, as that indicates that it is like a joke.

״דִּיתִיהְוִייִין״, ״דִּיתִיצְבִּייִין״ – תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹדִין; דְּמַשְׁמַע תֶּהֶוְיָין וְתִצְבְּיָין. וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו ״דְּתֵירוּכִין״, וּלְוָיו ״דְּשִׁבּוּקִין״; דְּמַשְׁמַע תְּרִיכִין וּשְׁבִיקִין.

“Abaye continues: In the clause: That you shall be permitted to go marry any man that you wish, the words ditihevyin and dititzviyin must include three instances of the letter yod in a row in each word, as with only two instances of the letter yod these words indicate: That they shall be [tehevyan], and: That they wish [titzviyan], referring to other women. And he should extend the vav of teirukhin and the vav of shevukin, as otherwise, the vav may be mistaken for a yod, and those words spelled with a yod indicate divorced [terikhin] and left [shevikin] women. In other words, it will change the meaning from describing the document as one that divorces or sends away to describing the women as divorced and sent away.

וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו ״דְּכַדּוּ״; דְּמַשְׁמַע ״וּכְדִי״. וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב ״לְאִיתְנְסָבָא״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע לָא יִתְנַסְבָא, אֶלָּא ״לְהִתְנְסָבָא״.

“And in the clause: And now [ukhedu] I have dismissed and ousted and divorced you, he should extend the vav of khedu, as other-wise, the vav may be mistaken for a yod, and spelled with a yod it indicates: And with nothing [ukhedi]. And in the expression: To go marry [lehitnasseva] he should not write le’itnasseva with an alef and a yod, as, if he leaves space between the letters it will indicate: Will not get married [la yitnasseva]. Rather, he should write lehitnasseva, with a heh and without a yod, so there will be no room for this error.” (Sefaria.ORG translation)

 

There is a tradition that a get should contain only 12 lines because get in gematria equals 12 (ג=3  ט=9). The following is the traditional text of the get. I have highlighted in red Abaye’s correct terminology and spelling.

 

ב_______ בשבת, ב_______ ימים לירח _______, שנת_______
לבריאת עולם למנין שאנו מנין כאן ב_______ מתא דיתבא על נהר _______
ועל מי מעינות, אנא _______ בן _______, העומד היום ב_______ מתא,
דיתבא על נהר _______ ועל מי מעינות, צביתי ברעות נפשי
בדלא אניסנא, ושבקית ופטרית ותרוכית יתיכי ליכי אנת אנתתי
_______ בת _______ העומדת היום ב_______ מתא, דיתבא
על נהר _______ועל מי מעינות, דהוית אנתתי
מן קדמת דנא וכדו פטרית ושבקית ותרוכית יתיכי ליכי דיתיהוייין רשאה
ושלטאה בנפשיכי למהך להתנסבא לכל גבר דיתיצבייין, ואנש לא ימחא
בידיכי מן יומא דנן ולעלם, והרי את מותרת לכל אדם,
ודן די יהוי ליכי מנאי ספר תרוכין ואגרת שבוקין וגט פטורין
כדת משה וישראל.

פלוני בן פלוני עד
פלוני בן פלוני עד

English Translation:

On the __________ day of the week, the __________ day of the month of __________ in the year __________ after creation of the world, according to the calendaric calculations that we count here, in the city __________, which is situated on the__________ river, and situated near springs of water, I, __________ the son of __________, who today am present in the city __________, which is situated on the__________ river, and situated near springs of water, willingly consent, being under no duress, to release, discharge, and divorce you [to be] on your own, you, my wife __________, daughter of __________, who are today in the city of __________, which is situated on the__________ river, and situated near springs of water, who has hitherto been my wife. And now I do release, discharge, and divorce you [to be] on your own, so that you are permitted and have authority over yourself to go and marry any man you desire. No person may object against you from this day onward, and you are permitted to every man. This shall be for you from me a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of absolution, in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel.

_________ the son of _________ — witness
_________ the son of _________ — witness.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/557971/jewish/Text-of-the-Get.htm