Note to Brachot 18

On this page Shmuel, a sage from Babylon goes to the cemetery to talk to his dead father, to ask a question about the charity funds.

This story is parallel to King Shaul talking to the dead prophet Shmuel. Indeed, they were reincarnations: Sage Shmuel was the reincarnation of King Shaul, and the Father of Shmuel was the reincarnation of the prophet Shmuel.

This is why Shmuel is called, "Arioch, or King" - because he was the reincarnation of a King. This also explains why the dead at first refused to bring back the Father of Shmuel - in their earlier lives they also could not find the prophet Shmuel in the world of the dead.

The whole story of the dead taunting Shmuel is now explained as a Tikkun (fix), since in his earlier life, as King Shaul, Shmuel did not do it right by bringing back the dead prophet. So now he was getting a bit of a rebuke.

Art: Theodore Gericault - Head of a dead young man

Note to Eruvin 18 - Reincarnation of Manoach

"A man should not walk after a woman, and not even after his wife."

Regarding this, the Sages said that Manoach was an ignoramus since he "Followed his wife" when an angel invited them. However, Manoach could claim that he followed "The advice of his wife." 

To settle this, Manoach came back in reincarnation as Abba Chilkiya. People used to come to Abba Chilkiya to ask him to pray for rain. He and his wife would go to the roof of their house and pray, but the clouds would first appear on her side - just as the angel first came to the wife of Manoach. So Abba Chilkiya was proving that as Manoach, he followed "The advice of his wife." She also had an additional trait: when some ruffians appeared in their neighborhood and caused big trouble, Abba Chilkiya prayed that they die, whereas she prayed that they would reform - which they did.

Incidentally, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein would always let a woman in the door first.

Source:  "Gilgulei Neshamot" by Rabbi Menachem Meir of Fano.

Art: John Phillip (1817–1867) A Woman Praying

Kiddushin 24 – Tooth and eye

A type of slave designated as “Canaanite slave” is acquired with money and is the property of its owner. Nevertheless, if the master knocks out the slave’s tooth or destroys his eye, whether by accident or on purpose, the slave acquires freedom. Moreover, if the master destroys “a tip of the slave’s limb that does not regenerate,” the slaves also goes free. There are twenty four such “tips”: ten fingers, ten toes, two ears, the nose and the male member. How do we know this? Only the eye and tooth are mentioned in the Torah!?

Well, easy: what is common between an eye and a tooth? The fact that they are exposed to view and they do not regenerate! – Therefore, we will include any other organ that is exposed to view and that does not regenerate, and these are the twenty-four mentioned above.

But we can suggest a counterargument: why do we need to mention a tooth after an eye was mentioned? The eye is in the open, and it does not regenerate. So the eye alone could teach me the lesson, and I would know that a slave goes free when the master knocks out his tooth. If so, why was the tooth mentioned? – To limit freedom to only these two cases!

We can argue back: if only the tooth was mentioned, then I would include even the milk tooth. How do I know that a slave does not go free in this case? – By comparison with an eye, which does not regenerate.

Okay, but then the Torah should have written just the eye! – No, for if it did, I would not include the tooth, since the tooth is not present at birth. Thus, both had to be mentioned, and the other twenty-four members are learned from them.

Art: Self-Portrait With Black Vase And Spread Fingers by Egon Schiele

Kiddushin 10 – Betrothal by relations

A woman can be betrothed by having relations with her, and there are two different ways to derive this, one from the words, "Woman who cohabited with her husband," and another – from "If a man marries a woman or possesses her."

Is there a practical difference between these theoretical derivations? – Imagine that ten men cohabited anally with a betrothed girl who is a virgin. According to the first way of learning, she is still a virgin after each act since only the husband makes her a non-virgin with anal cohabitation; therefore, each man is to be punished by stoning, specified for violating a betrothed virgin. According to the second approach, though, she is a non-virgin after the first act, and the next nine men are subject to a lighter punishment of strangulation.

Exactly what stage of cohabitation accomplishes kiddushin? Typically, for infidelity and prohibited relations, the first stage of relations, member touching (discussed in another place), is considered the act. However, for kiddushin, it is different. Since the man intends complete penetration, he achieves kiddushin only when this is done. Practical difference? – Can he inherit his wife or bury her if he is a Kohen.

Since there are two stages in marriage, betrothal (dedication) and chuppah (bringing the bride into the husband's domain), a question may be asked: if one does betrothal through cohabitation, does it accomplish the second stage of marriage – that is, is the second cohabitation or a chuppah still needed? After multiple arguments back and forth, it is concluded that cohabitation only accomplished betrothal, but a chuppah is still required.

Art: Wedding at the Photographer's by Pascal Adolphe Jean Dagnan-Bouveret

Kiddushin 9 – Betrothal in earnest

To become betrothed (which is considered like complete marriage, except that a chuppah is needed before the couple begins to live together), the woman has to accept a valuable proffered by the groom and tell him that with this, she agrees to become his bride. Let us look at some marginal cases.

If a woman on a cruise takes the betrothal money (a hundred zuz, about $5,000) from the man but immediately throws it overboard the ship, she is not betrothed. But we just said it!? – You might think that – since she would be obligated to return the money if she does not get married – she actually means to accept but tests the husband in his anger management. So the teacher had to tell us that she was not betrothed because she did not voice an agreement.

Another example: a man was drinking in a bar, and a woman came over and said, "Give me a drink." He said, "If I do, will you become betrothed to me?" She replied, "Do pour a drink!" – Here, too, she is not betrothed since she agreed to the drink, not the marriage.

In addition to money or valuables, a man can betroth a woman with a document, where he writes, "With this document, you become betrothed to me." This is derived from other sales laws, and it applies even if the paper on which it is written is not worth anything. Just like a bill of divorce, this document must be written with her in mind.

Finally, one can engage a woman by having relations with her – provided that he announces to the witnesses that this is his intent and then secludes himself with her. This is derived from the words "who cohabited with her husband."

Art: Woman Drinking with Sleeping Soldier by Gerard Ter Borch

Kiddushin 4 – When a man takes a wife

Earlier, we saw one way to derive that marriage can be effected by giving the bride-to-be a ring or another object of value. However, it was based on taking the extra word "money" from a different place in the Torah and applying it to our context.

A more direct way is to take the phrase, "When a man takes a woman and has relations with her... if later he does not like her, he can divorce."" This clearly describes the situation of marriage and uses the word "take." The same word "take" is found when Abraham buys a field from Efron and says, "I gave you the money for the field, take it from me." We thus see that "take" has a meaning of acquiring with money.

Now this calls for some logical acrobatics. Look at a Jewish female slave, who cannot be acquired by having relations with her and is acquired only with money; a wife, who is acquired by relations, is undoubtedly acquired with money! Therefore, we don't need the derivation above at all!!

No, because a Yebamah case disproves this. Look at Yebamah (one's dead brother's wife), whom the remaining brother has to marry. She is acquired by cohabitation – and nevertheless, she is not acquired with money. So the above logic breaks: someone acquired with relations is nevertheless not acquired with money.

However, we can deflect this attack: Yebamah has an inherent weakness in that she is not acquired with a document, whereas a wife is acquired with a document of intent to marry.

Thus, we saw an attack, a deflection of this attack, and then a deflection of this deflection. We see at least why the proof based on the word "take" helps.

Art: The Innkeepers Daughter by Charles Cope West

Kiddushin 3 – Who searches for whom?

It is the way of a man to search after a wife and not the other way around. This is similar to someone who lost a precious stone on a beach. Who searches after whom? Obviously, the one that lost his possession searches for it.

We mentioned that betrothal can be done with money. Why is that so? Furthermore, there is a related law that a father can give his daughter away in marriage when she is young; in that case, the money the groom pays goes to the father.

Both questions have the same, if non-trivial, answer. This is derived from the law of a Jewish slave girl. The father can sell his daughter as a servant. In this case, it is understood that when she grows up, the buyer will take her as a wife or designate her for her son. She goes free if none of these happen, and the Torah adds, "No money!" We already know that "free" means "no money." So we understand that it is in this case that there is no money, but in another related case, there is money. And when is it? When a woman gets married, or when the father gives her away in marriage.

That is exactly what we wanted to demonstrate, that the betrothal which will lead to marriage (chuppah) can be done with money.

Today both events happen under the chuppah in close succession: first, the groom gives money (or a ring) to the bride, then the ceremony is concluded under the chuppah, which symbolizes the new home.

Art: Man in a Smock by Gustave Caillebotte