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

Kiddushin 2 - Three ways to acquire a woman

A wife can be acquired in one of three ways, and she acquires herself back in one of two ways.

She may be acquired through money, a document of betrothal, or cohabitation. Two witnesses are needed to testify in case of money and document. In case of acquisition by cohabitation (which is not encouraged), the witnesses testify to the declared intention and the seclusion.

She acquires herself back through a Get or through the death of her husband.

Passive use of “she is acquired” instead of “he acquires” teaches that a woman can only be acquired willingly, not against her will.

Art: Marriage Contract by Jan Josef Horemans the Elder

Gittin 60 – “I say, I have come, it was written about me in the Torah scroll”

Some say that the Torah was written and given to Jews scroll by scroll and later glued together. The proof comes from the words of David, "I say, I have come, it was written about me in the Torah scroll." What does David mean?

Initially, David doubted whether he could be a king since he was a descendant of Ruth, a Moabite, and the Torah said, "Moav should not enter the Jewish people." The loophole was that "Moav" was male, so females of Moav, such as Ruth, could enter – but not everyone agreed to it. However, later he found a hint in the angel's words, who says to Lot, "Take the daughters found with you." About David himself, God says, "I have found David, my servant." So David found a hint to himself in the Torah. But since he calls it a "scroll," it means that it was written and given to Jews scroll by scroll.

Others say it was written as a whole since God tells Moses, "Take this book of the Torah." What about the "scroll" proof? – The whole Torah is also called a scroll. But what about "this book" evidence? – That is after it was glued together.

Furthermore, even though the Torah was written down, a larger body of knowledge was only taught from teacher to student and never written down. What is the proof? "Write for yourself these words" means that some words are to be written down, but "Based on these words" alludes to portions to be guarded and transmitted orally. Later on, it was too hard for the people to remember everything, and even oral teaching was written down – and this is the Talmud.

Art: King David by Juan Correa de Vivar

Gittin 59 – For peaceful co-existence

Young orphans may be hard-pressed to find sustenance. They may try to sell some of their land. But since all know that these children are not legally adults and that when they grow up, they may retract and demand their fields back, people may be unwilling to buy orphans' fields. Therefore the Sages changed the law here and allowed such sales to stand, even when the orphans grow up. At what age do young children acquire this right? -- Between six and ten, depending on their maturity.

Seven people are called to read the Torah in the synagogue on Shabbat, and the first one should be the most learned. This law, however ancient and just, could lead to quarrels, and a new rule was adopted: the first one to read is a Kohen, and following him is a Levi. Afterward, regular "Israel" Jews are called. In this way, people don't argue, and peace prevails.

A similar law was established for peace in society: if fish is caught in one's net, technically, it does not belong to the net owner because – if he does not hold the net – he has not acquired it in any of the accepted ways. Nevertheless, the Sages gave him ownership, and now anyone else who takes the fish from the net is considered to be stealing it. Another law: gleanings in the field in Israel are left for the Jewish poor. Yet the Sages accepted the rule that any poor who comes to collect them is permitted to do so – to prevent strife.

Art: The Care of orphans By Jan De Bray

Gittin 58 – In the aftermath of destruction

After the destruction of Betar, they recovered the tefillin worn by people slain there, and the total volume of these tefillin was forty boxes, each box being the size of a small mikveh, about 25 cubic feet.

Jewish boys captured by the Romans were exceedingly beautiful. Initially, Romans used to look at a signet ring with images made of the best gold when engaging in conjugal relations. Now they started using Jewish boys by tyeing them to the beds and looking at them at this time. One of the boys asked another, "Where is this punishment written in the Torah?" The other replied, "Even blows not written in this Torah scroll will God bring on you." The boy accepted the answer but continued, "How far was I from this place in my studies?" - "A column and a half." The boy concluded, "Had I come to this place myself, I would have understood it without you."

In these times, many oppressors would seize land from the Jews. If later, when the law became more enforceable, another Jew wanted to repurchase land from the oppressors, this was praiseworthy because more of the Land of Israel would be in Jewish hands. However, he needed to consider that this land previously belonged
to a fellow Jew and was taken away from him. Therefore, he had to formally acquire it from this Jew first and then redeem it from the oppressor. If he first redeemed it from the oppressor and then from the Jew, it did not count because of the potential intimidation of that Jew by the oppressor.

Art: The Praying Jew by Marc Chagall

Gittin 57 – The story of the rooster and the hen

The Jews of Har HaMelech used to take out a rooster and a hen for the wedding, implying that the newlywed should have many children, just like the rooster and the hen. Once, a band of Romans saw it and took the rooster away. Jews fell upon and killed them, and Caesar came with his army to take revenge.

There was one of the Jews from the south who could jump a mile. He was so swift that he alone could kill all of the Roman army. Caesar put his crown on the ground and prayed, "Master of the entire world, do not let me be shamed through a single man." The southerner, however, said differently: "God, you have forsaken us," implying that he would defeat the Romans alone anyway. That was the cause of his downfall, since a snake bit him when he went into the toilet, and he died. Caesar retreated in gratitude that God answered his prayer. The Jews misunderstood and celebrated their victory. On seeing that, Caesar came back and destroyed Har HaMelech.

The Talmud describes another place where righteous Jews were killed and asks, why? It answers – because they did not mourn the destruction of Jerusalem – while one should be in joy when Jerusalem is being rebuilt and mourn when it is destroyed.

Art: Grief by Charles Emile Hippolyte Lecomte-Vernet

Gittin 56 – The story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza

Now start the sad episodes, such that even though the Torah brings joy, one is forbidden to study it during the day of Tisha B'Av; the next two pages are permitted.

At the time of destruction, the Roman law was that anyone who could kill a Jew should do so – or else he would be killed. Later, he was fined four zuz. Yet later, he would be killed. During the first of these periods, there were no oppressors in Israel – they were completely free to rob Jewish land, and there was no law for them. When law and order were restored, if a Jew wanted to buy land his land back from an oppressor, he had the first right to do so. If someone else wanted to redeem this land, he had to pay a quarter to the original owner and then redeem it from the oppressor.

But how did the destruction happen? One rich person in Jerusalem was having a feast, and he invited his friend, Kamtza. By mistake, the servant invited his worst enemy, Bar Kamtza. Bar Kamtza came but was requested to leave. He pleaded to stay and offered to pay, even for the whole feast – to preserve his dignity – but it did not help. He figured out that they were all to blame since the Sages were there and nobody stood up for him. He then incited the Roman ruler to destroy Jerusalem.

The dispatched general used divination and saw, by bird's flight and by arrow's flight, that Jerusalem would indeed fall. He then asked a child what he was learning, and the child said, "I will take revenge on Edom." The general understood that God wanted to destroy Jerusalem but that he would later take revenge on him, so he ran away, converted, and Rabbi Meir was one of his descendants. Then came Titus and destroyed the Temple.

Art: Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Francesco Hayez

Gittin 55 – More decrees to help society

After the destruction of the Temple and a big national defeat, the Sages were given a chance to formulate a new way of life that would last for the next two millenniums in Yavneh. Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgeda testified there about some laws that he remembered. Some of them dealt with the benefit of society.

For example, a deaf-mute girl, whom her father gave in marriage, can be divorced with a Get – even though she is not legally competent to accept it. This is true because a woman could be divorced against her will (until the Sages decreed otherwise).

Rava derived from here that if a man prepares a Get, tells a witness in secret that he is going to divorce his wife - but then tells his wife that it is a loan document that he wants her to accept – she is nevertheless divorced. But this is obvious!? – Rava had to tell this us because otherwise, we could think that the man annuls the Get by calling it a “loan document” – so Rava tells us that he is doing this out of embarrassment.

Another enactment: if someone stole a beam and made it part of his house, then by right, he should disassemble the house and return the beam. Yet the Sages decreed that he could just return the cost. Why did they do it? – To make it easier for those who want to repent of their previous theft.

Art: The Secret by Edmund Blair Leighton

Gittin 54 – To punish or not to punish

Earlier, we saw that the Sages sometimes added and at other times removed penalties. However, the logic depended on a particular situation. For example, if one plants a tree on Shabbat, then if he did it on purpose, he should uproot this tree, but if he did it by mistake, he can keep it. Compare this to planting on a Shmita year, when planting in Israel is generally forbidden: whether he does it on purpose or by mistake if he plants a tree on Shmita,
he has to uproot it.

Why the difference? – Jews were not suspected of violating Shabbat, so he who did it was probably a brazen violator who would not try to claim that he did it by mistake. Thus, there was no reason to penalize those who did it by mistake. Shmita was different: too many people regarded it lightly and violated it and would then claim that they did it by mistake; therefore, the Sages decreed that even he who plants a tree on Shmita by mistake must still uproot it.

Continuing with invisible damage, a Kohen who brings a sacrifice can easily ruin it with his thought: if he thinks, while doing the slaughter (shehitah) or while accepting blood, that he plans to eat it at the wrong time, the sacrifice is immediately invalid. This is similar to the cases discussed just above, and the rule is that if he did it on purpose, he is liable to repay the cost of the sacrifice. The Talmud then discusses why we believe the Kohen, who says that he ruined the sacrifice.

Art: Rabbi by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Gittin 53 – Invisible damage

If one has made his fellow's wine ritually impure, it cannot be used for a previous purpose, and he has caused a loss. Likewise, he may cause loss by adding the Kohen's portion to his fellow's wine – so that now only Kohanim can drink it. Finally, he can pour this wine as a libation for the idols.

The three cases are all similar in that the damage is not perceptible. In this case, does the perpetrator have to pay? – The answer is that if he did it by mistake, he is free, but if he did not on purpose, then he is liable. Why such a distinction?

In truth, he did real damage and should be liable in both cases. However, the Sages decreed, for the benefit of society, that one who does it by mistake is not penalized. This will encourage him to tell of his deed to the owner, and the owner will not transgress by using this wine. However, if he did it on purpose, there is no point in encouraging him to confess – he will not tell in any case.

Others say that just the opposite, invisible damage is not real, and one is not liable in either case. Now, why is the one who does it on purpose still have to pay? – The Sages decreed so, for otherwise, everyone can damage his fellow's property by these actions that leave no visible trace.

The Talmud discusses why each case had to be mentioned specifically and how it cannot be derived from the other two.

Art: A Woman Offering a Glass of Wine to a Man by Gabriel Metsu

Gittin 52 – Caretaker for the orphans

If the father dies, someone may have to care for the children. The owner of the house they live in may take it on himself, or the father may appoint him or her. This administrator has rules of what he can and cannot do. He is required to take tithes on their foods. Once they grow up and can care for themselves, the administrator must declare under oath that he did not misappropriate anything of theirs.

How can he take the tithe when the produce does not belong to him, if the Torah said, "You will tithe your grain" – and not someone else? – Indeed, he is only allowed to tithe what is needed for food, but anything that is stored for later – they will tithe when they grow up.

There was an administrator in the neighborhood of Rabbi Meir, who was trying to sell the land of the orphans, but the rule is that administrators should not impoverish the orphans – so Rabbi Meir was not letting him. Rabbi Meir was then told in his dream, "I (God) am trying to destroy them, and you are trying to save?!" – But Rabbi Meir still did not allow it because "one does not take actions based on dreams."

The administrator takes an oath that he did not steal – Sages decreed this to protect the orphans. Since the administrator is most likely returning a favor, he will not refrain from being an administrator just because he will have to swear. Abba Shaul gives the opposite reason: administrator is just being nice, and if you put an oath on him, he will eschew the obligation; if a court appoints him – then he gets the benefit of people trusting him and, therefore, will not refuse – and the logic of Abba Shaul was accepted.

Art: Caretaker's coming to a rich house, Vasiliy Perov

Gittin 51 – Limit people's desires

Imagine that someone (Shimon) bought land, worked it, had crops coming, and now it is discovered that the land was stolen. The one from whom the land was originally stolen comes and reclaims the land and the crop, and Shimon is left with nothing. So he goes to the land seller (who is, as it turned out, a thief) and wants to collect his money from the seller. But the seller has no cash, and his fields have also been sold. Shimon then goes and collects from the purchasers of the thief's land. By right, he should be able to collect the price of the field and the crops.

However, the Sages limited his collection rights for the world's benefit. If someone could always come and collect not only a field but also unexpected and unlimited crops, people would be so nervous about buying fields that commerce would stop.

An oath is serious, and there is only one money-related oath in the Torah. It happens when someone in court admits to a part of the claim. Say the lender claims that someone owes him 200 coins, and the borrower admits that yes, indeed, he owes money, but only 100 coins. In that case, the Torah says the court can require an oath from the borrower. Why is that? The borrower can rationalize and say, "I will return the money later, so now, to avoid being a bad guy, I will just say that I only owe a part." With the oath, he won't say it.

By right, the same oath applies if someone returns a wallet with 100 coins, and the owner claims that there were 200. However, the Sages canceled the oath, or people would never return lost objects.

Art: Harvest in Provence by Vincent Van Gogh

Gittin 50 – Credit obligations

When someone guarantees the payment of the Ketubah, he incurs no obligation. If the husband later defaults and does not pay the Ketubah to his wife, our guarantor is off the hook. Why is that? The guarantor relies primarily on the husband to pay the Ketubah and reasons that he will most likely never have to pay. Moreover, he is simply doing a mitzvah to encourage the pair to marry! That is why we can assume that he does not seriously obligate himself.

We mentioned earlier that a debt if one cannot pay it, is collected from his lands of medium quality. Why is that? In truth, he could even give his worst land. The Torah said the lender "Cannot come into the house to take a deposit, but must wait outside till the debtor brings him something." What will the debtor bring? – Of course, the worst. However, the Sages raised the borrower's obligations, for otherwise, nobody would want to loan money to his fellow.

However, when a man dies and a creditor comes to collect the debt, he can only collect from the worst. This is so because he collects not from the borrower but from the orphans that are left. If they are minors, they surely need protection, and even if they are adults, they likely have not paid attention to their father's loans and can be easily fooled. Here the Sages left the Torah law intact because lenders seldom consider the possibility of the borrower's death and would give out loans anyway.

Art: La Mariée - The Bride - by Marc Chagall

Gittin 49 – Why does land quality matter?

"If one's animal damage his fellow's field, he must pay with the best of his field," tells us that there are damage payments. However, we started discussing that it is not clear what "his field" means.

Rabbi Ishmael says, "His field was damaged, and his field is now used to measure the quality." That is, the damaged party's best field determines the quality of the land to be collected. Rabbi Akiva says the phrase "He must pay with the best of his field," clearly tells that the one who pays is the one whose field we are discussing.

But why all this talk about the best land, medium or bad one? Rabbi Shimon, the only one who explained the reasons behind Torah laws, said: why does the damager pay from his best land? – So that people would think thus: "What's the point of robbing or stealing? Tomorrow the courts will take it all away from me, and they will do it by taking my best land!"

Now, why is a debt repaid with medium-quality land? So that a rich person would not think thus: "I will advance a loan to this fellow of mine, and then when he cannot repay, I will collect his best vineyard!" But according to this logic, he should collect the worst land!? – If you do this, will people refrain from giving loans altogether?

Finally, the Ketubah of a woman (after all, we are studying divorces) is paid from the worst land of the husband; why is that? – Because the various advantages a woman derives from marriage are significant, women will not refrain from getting married just because they know that their Ketubah payment will be paid from bad-quality land.

Art: Le prêteur et sa femme (The moneylender and his wife) by Quentin METSYS

Gittin 48 – When to give the best land

In discussing the sale of the land in Israel, the Talmud asks: if one sells just the trees for their crops, is it considered as if the land is sold with them, or not? Rabbi Yochanan says that the land is regarded as sold with the trees, and Rabbi Asi comments that he better say this, or else "Rabbi Yochanan will not find his hands and feet in the study hall."

Why is this? Because in another place, the same Rabbi Yochanan said that brothers who inherit land from their father are considered buyers of land from each other. In those times when the Jubilee year was observed, the land would return to the owners every fifty years. Unless the land went with the fruit, nobody would ever own land in the true sense of the word, and nobody would ever bring the first fruit!

Continuing with the laws promulgated "for the benefit of the world," the next one is this: if one harms his neighbor, he pays for it "with the best of his land." We are talking about material damages here, and if the tortfeasor (let's call him "damager") has cash, he should simply pay cash. However, if he does not, he may have land, and the courts collect from his land. The amount they collect is equal to the damage. But the quality of the land is up to the court, and the rule is "take the best."

But why is it called a "decree of the Sages?" Is it Torah law that everyone already knows?!  – Actually, yes. However, it would be only according to Rabbi Ishmael, who understands the "best field "differently. The best field, but of whom? – Of the damaged party! A rich damager would just give some bad land because it would be like the best of the poor damaged party. The Sages prevented this by requiring that the damager gives of his best.

Art: Still Life with a Basket of Fruit by Balthasar Van Der Ast

Gittin 47 – What to leave in a will

If one sells himself and his children as slaves to idolaters, the community should redeem him. However, if he keeps doing this repeatedly, they refrain. After the father's death, the community should redeem his children. While the father was alive, he watched over them, but now they should not be taught the wrong way of life.

There was a village near the city of Lod whose residents were occasional cannibals. A man sold himself to them and asked Rabbi Ami to command the community to redeem him. Rabbi Ami quoted the above rule and said that it should apply, especially here, where the man's life was in danger. They told Rabbi Ami, “He eats forbidden foods!” He answered, “Maybe there was nothing else?” They told him, “No, he did it on purpose.” Rabbi Ami said to the man, “Sorry, they don't let me redeem you.”

Resh Lakish heard of this and sold himself to the people near Lod. As a last wish, he asked to be permitted to sit them down, tie them, and give them a light blow with his backpack. Inside the backpack was a stone, and in this way, he killed them.

Resh Lakish worked hard but spent his earnings liberally and kindheartedly. All he left as inheritance was a quart of safflower oil, but he was still upset, quoting, "They left their possessions to strangers." A man should not amass wealth and pass it to his descendants since they may be unworthy.

When a non-Jew buys land in Israel, does he own it ritually so that even tithes need not be given? Some say no, because “I (God) own the land.“ Others say yes, because it says, “Take tithe of your grain” (and not of grain owned by a non-Jew). Either way, the Sages established that the seller should keep buying the first fruit from this land and bringing it to the Temple. This was done to discourage such sales.

Art: The Money Lender by Dutch School

Gittin 46 - Divorce that cannot be undone

If one divorces his wife and states during his divorce that he is doing it because of the bad name that she got - he can never remarry her. Why? Should he later find out that she was maligned, he could say, "Had I only known this, I would have never divorced you - even if they paid me a lot of money!" Such words can make her Get invalid. Then she would still be considered married to him, and her children from the next husband would get the status of mamzerim. With the new rule, however, he understands that this divorce is final, and even if the accusations are false, he will not be able to return her. Thus, his actions show that he no longer loves her, and his claim, "Had I only known," is not to be believed.

If one divorces his wife because she is incapable of childbearing - and states so - he cannot remarry her. If she marries again and has children, he could claim, "Had I only known that you can have children, I would have never divorced you." This could invalidate her divorce and the legitimacy of his children.

 
Since this divorce is her fault, as it stands, she does not get the Ketubah payment. However, if she now marries, has children, and then asks for the Ketubah payment (claiming wrongful divorce), the husband can counterclaim and say, "Your silence is better than your words." That is, if you keep silent - well and good, but if you demand the Ketubah, I can say this, "Had I known that in the end, after my divorce, I will also have to pay the Ketubah, I would have never divorced you" - which leads to the same consequences.

Art: Allegory of the art of painting by Jan Vermeer

Gittin 45 - Ransoming hostages - how much to pay?

When bandits demand money to release hostages, they should not be given extraordinary amounts - for the benefit of society. Is the intent not to impoverish society, or is it to discourage future hostage-taking? A certain Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter for twelve thousand gold coins. Since he paid the money himself, society was not burdened. Does it not prove that the second reason - that the bandits should not take more Jews hostage in the future - does not apply? Said Abaye, "Who said that the Sages approved of his actions?" - Rather, this rule is intended to discourage future hostage-taking.

Another rule: not to help hostages escape but rather continue with the ransom negotiations. What is the reason here? Some say it is to prevent harsher treatment of future hostages, while others say it is to avoid the torture of the remaining ones. Why does the reason matter if the rule is not to help them escape? - It will make a difference in the case of a single captive: the first reason would still apply, but the second would not.

Likewise, the Torah scroll, tefillin, and mezuzah can only be bought from idolaters for reasonable amounts to benefit society. If one does not buy them, the sellers may destroy them in anger, but if he buys them for too much - they may continue stealing.

However, a question may be asked: perhaps they wrote the Torah, and if so, how can it be read in the synagogue? Rabbi Eliezer would say that anything an idolater does is for the sake of his idol - so this Torah scroll should be destroyed. Rav Hamnuna said that Torah scrolls written by non-Jews or anyone who is not proper to write them, such as a non-observant Jew, are invalid and should be buried. Our rule works according to the opinion that if the Torah is written correctly, anyone can write it - if only the leather was prepared for the sake of writing a Torah scroll on it.

Art: Two Bandits in the Hills by William Simpson

Gittin 44 – A flurry of unresolved questions about a slave

As we saw earlier, the life of a slave was quite privileged. In particular, on emancipation, he was to acquire the full status of a “Son of Israel,” and even as a slave, he was already observing mitzvot.

Therefore, if someone sold his slave to an idolater (who would likely stop the slave from observing the mitzvot), the slave became legally free – this was the decree of the Sages. They have also added that the previous owner had to write for the slave a Get of emancipation. A special case is when the master wrote for the slave a letter that said, “When you flee, I have no claims on you.” In this case, the Get would not be needed.

If one sold his slave (which normally involved a penalty on the master, in that the slave goes free), but he sold him only for thirty days, would the penalty still apply? What if he sold him on the condition that the slave does not do any work (but lives with a slave woman and helps her grow the children)? What if he sold him for work, but with the exception of Saturdays and Holidays? What if he sold the slave to a non-Jew who lives in Israel and observes the laws of Noah or to a non-observant Jew? Does the slave go free? We can at least resolve the last question: Noahide is considered an idolater for this. Some say that a non-observant Jew is the same as an idolater, and others say that he is not.

Consider a man from Babylon who marries a woman from Israel, and she comes to live with him, together with her slaves. Do we say that she brought slaves outside of Israel and must be penalized by freeing them, or do we say that now they are the husband's, and he should not free them? Here we get no answer.

Art: Talmudic Discussion by Mark Gertler

Gittin 43 – Betting on the life of a slave

Imagine someone suggests a very unusual futures trade: he will pay a certain amount to the owner of the slave, betting that this slave will be gored by an ox. He will pay some amount now, and if this slave is indeed gored, then the penalty of thirty shekels, which the master would receive, will instead go to the trader. Is such a trade valid?

On the one hand, even Rabbi Meir, who validates buying next year's fruit of a tree, may disagree here: the tree is sure to bring fruit, but the slave might not be gored, and even if he is gored – there is a rule that if the owner of the ox admits his guilt, he does not pay the penalty.

On the other hand, even the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir and who invalidate the sale of the following year's fruit may say that the slave's future trade is valid: after all, the slave is here, and the ox is also here, but the fruit is not. The question remains unanswered.

Another question: Is this valid if a man who is half-slave and half-free betroths a woman? If a man betroths half of a woman, it is invalid because he left the other half free, and a wife needs to be acquired wholly. However, this slave does not leave out anything – so maybe this is valid. Consider an earlier rule of a half-slave who was gored and whose payment went to his heirs. If he has heirs, he must have a wife! So his betrothal must be valid!? – Not necessarily; maybe the teacher wanted to say, "Should go to his heirs, but he has none."

Incidentally, one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman indeed acquires her as a wife because he wants the whole woman and does not leave any part of her.

 Art: Unequal Marriage by Vasiliy Pukirev

Gittin 42 – Vicissitudes of the slave of two masters

The Talmud discussed how one can become a slave of two masters, especially how he can be a slave of one master and, in part, a free man. Then it describes what else can happen to such a slave.

For example, if an ox gores this slave, who receives the damages payments? – The answer is that if the goring happened on the day when this slave was working for the master, then the payment goes to the master because it is his property that was damaged. If, however, this happened on the day when the slave was working for himself, then the payments go directly to him, for he is a free man at this time.

If so, do we have a basis to allow him to marry a slave woman on those days when he is working for his master and a free woman when he is working for himself? – No, this far we don't go: money can indeed be divided, but prohibitions that are intrinsic to him cannot be divided to change their nature from day to day.

Imagine that the ox does not just gore this slave but actually kills him. In this case, if the ox was habitually goring people, the owner of the ox pays a penalty of thirty shekels for his gross negligence. Who does the payment go to? – Half goes to the master (because the slave is one-half his), and the other half – to the heirs of the slave. But we expected it depends on which day he dies, just like above!? – Above, the slave was still alive and would eventually recompense both his master and himself, but here the total capital is so-to-say gone, so the two sides divide the recompense.

Art: Lawyer in his Study by Adriaen Jansz. Van Ostade

Gittin 41 - A slave of two masters

Imagine that someone makes his slave collateral for his loan so that if he does not repay, the lender acquires the slave. The master can still free the slave. However, the slave must write a promissory note for his value. To whom?

Some say that he writes it to the lender. In truth, the slave is free, but the Sages wanted to prevent a situation where the lender meets the former slave in the street and claims that this is his slave - implying that his children are children of a slave! Others say that the Sages force the lender to write a Get because he can sue the borrower for the value of the slave and get paid anyway.

If two people pull their money together and buy a slave, but then one makes his part of the slave free, then the slave works one day for the other owner and another day for himself. On Shabbat, he does not work. That is the opinion of Beit Hillel.

However, Beit Shammai argued: this slave could not marry a slave woman because he was part free. He cannot marry a free Jewish woman because he is part slave. Should he refrain from procreation altogether? But the earth "was not created to be empty, but to be populated." Therefore, Beit Shammai suggests that the second owner should be forced to free the slave and accept a note for half of his value from him. And Beit Hillel was convinced.

Art: The Jewish Wedding by Moritz Oppenheim

Gittin 40 - Signs of a free man

Rabbi Zeira said, "If you see a master who allows his slave to marry a Jewish woman, this is a sign that this master has previously freed his slave." Rabbi Yochanan was surprised: "Are you certain? I know that one who marries a slave woman - even that is not a clear sign that he freed her!" Rabbi Zeira explained, "I mean when we see that the master helps with the ceremony."

Likewise, if a slave dons tefillin in front of his master, this is not yet a definite sign, but if the master assists the slave in donning tefillin, this is a sure sign that he has previously freed the slave.

Rav Dimi traveled to Israel and brought back the following story. At the time of this death, a certain man said, "This woman slave revived my spirit. Therefore, you, my sons, should revive her spirit." Rabbi Yochanan wanted to say that she should go free. But Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi told him, "Maybe she indeed deserves freedom, but why do you force the heirs to also lose her children, who would be their slaves?" However, the story needed to be corrected. Really, the decision was to ask her what would revive her spirit - and if she insists on being free - so be it! And why is that? - Because it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

Earlier, we discussed that one who makes his slave ownerless only effects the first step to freedom. The slave still needs a Get. If now the master dies, the slave cannot rectify the situation since the master's heirs do not inherit the slave and, therefore, cannot free him. However, in many situations, Sages found a way to force the writing of a Get - because, without it, the slave could not get married.

Art: A Cairene Woman waited upon by a Galla Slave Girl by Emile Prisse d'Avennes

Gittin 39 – How can a slave free himself

Earlier, we discussed the life of a slave. There are two steps in his getting freedom: the master's ownership has to stop, and the slave needs to be legally freed in order to become a full-fledged Jew who can marry a Jewish woman.

Therefore, if a slave is declared "ownerless," this is only the first step; he needs to get a written bill of emancipation called Get. However, what about the rule that if a convert – who is like a new legal person, like a child born into the world, and who therefore does not have any legal inheritors – if this convert dies, then his slaves acquire themselves and are moreover become legally free, without a Get? – Death of the owner is different; this is similar to the death of a husband, which frees the wife without a Get.

Likewise, if a slave acquires himself with money, a Get is not required. But what about the following story: a man was dying, and his slave-woman screamed, "Until when will that person (meaning herself) be a slave!?" So he threw her his hat as if saying, "Just as the hat exchanges ownership, so you acquire yourself." They went to Rav Nachman to confirm, and he said, "The man has accomplished nothing." This seems to mean that even though she acquired herself, a formal Get was still required! – Well, that is how people understood it, but they were wrong.

In truth, the problem was that that hat he threw belonged to him. The acquisition that he intended, as any acquisition done by giving a token (like a kerchief) to another, requires that the object belongs to the buyer (her), not the seller (him). So the problem was that acquisition did not happen at all, but not that a Get was needed.

Art: Young Man in a Hat, by anonymous

Congratulations - completing Talmud Illuminated

Hello, friends,

those who started reading emails or blogs of Talmud Illuminated about seven and a half years ago have today come to complete the Talmud, by reading concise summaries and by enjoying and studying world's art.

Today we are starting on the next cycle, hopefully taking the learning to a higher level.

Best regards!

Gittin 38 - The escape of a slave

The life of a slave bought in Canaan is thus: he is offered to be circumcised and to remain a slave in a Jewish household. If he disagrees, he is to let go after a year. He has rights: if his master harms him by cutting off a limb, even by knocking out his tooth, he goes free. He has obligations: he has to observe most of the mitzvot.

What happens when this slave is captured by idolatrous robbers? Since the robbers will stop him from observing the mitzvot, one must repurchase this slave from the robbers. Does the slave then go free? - If the master still hopes to get the slave back, then if someone buys this slave to bring him back to the master, he remains the servant of his master. But if the one who redeems this slave wants him to go free, he indeed goes free. Why? - As far as the buyer is concerned - he redeemed the slave to freedom, so he cannot possibly become the new owner. Yet, the first master owns him!? - True, but he becomes free by the decree of the Sages: if the slave would go back to the master, then the freedom-loving redeemers would not have the motivation to redeem them.

This is the opinion of Rava. Abaye investigates what happens when the master loses hope of getting the slave back. The slave then should become free simply because the master, in his mind, does not own him. The Talmud describes when a slave who has become free needs an additional Get granting him freedom and other cases of redemption.

Art: The Idle Servant by Nicolaes Maes

Gittin 22 – Who can write the Get?

Everybody can write a Get (divorce document), even people usually not considered entirely responsible for their actions, such as a deaf-mute, deranged person, or anyone below bat/bar-mitzvah age. It goes without saying that a woman can write a Get, provided that she transfers its ownership to the husband, who can then give "his" Get to her. It is not the writing of the Get that matters; it is the signatures of the witnesses!

That rule sounds a bit strange: can we assume, for example, that a deranged person fulfills the requirement of writing a Get having in his mind that it is for a specific woman? – We have to say that someone who knows watches him and commands him what to do. What about the signatures of the witness? – We know that the law is like Rabbi Elazar, that it is the witnesses of giving the Get who matter!? – True, the rule assumes that the signing witnesses will be there for the continuation of the proceedings and will witness the giving of the Get as well, as is usually the case.

Another explanation is that this is a tongue-in-cheek rule. It emphasizes the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that only the signatures of witnesses matter – according to this, even a deranged person can write a Get.

Who can bring the Get if the husband can't come? Basically, anyone but here, the deranged person and the deaf-mute are excluded because they would have to testify that they saw the Get is written and signed. The Talmud goes into complications of someone under bar-mitzvah age when accepted the Get and started the journey, but then grew up, or someone who was normal became deranged on the way and possibly became lucid again.

Art: The Witness by John Wells-Smith

Gittin 21 – What to write the Get on?

Can one write a Get on a giant leaf growing on a tree, then tear it off and give it to his wife? – No! Since the Torah said, "And he will write for her a letter of divorce and give it," we understand that he must be able to give the Get immediately after writing. Here we have another action, tearing off, intervening between writing the Get and giving it; therefore, such Get is invalid. If he did, however, write on a leaf, tore it off, and gave it to his wife, he did not do things correctly, but the divorce is valid.

The last rule is in direct contradiction with the previous one! We just finished explaining why the Get is invalid, using the "He will write and give" - in one breath – and now we are saying that it is valid after all!?

The answer is that there are two components to the Get. The first is the "active" or "explicit," which effects the divorce. It gives the names of the husband and wife, the place, and the date. It also contains the key phrase, "You are free to marry anyone." This "active" part was initially left out on the leaf; only the secondary part was there. The active component was written in after the leaf was detached, so the Get was written correctly.

The explanation above may sound forced. Another explanation is that we are dealing with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that writing does not matter; only signing by the witnesses does, and it accomplishes the divorce. And they signed after the leaf was torn off the tree. This sounds more natural; why did they give the first explanation at all? – Because of the rule that in divorces, the law follows Rabbi Elazar, not Rabbi Meir, so they did not want to ascribe this rule to him.

Art: Walnut Tree in a Thomery Field by Alfred Sisley

Gittin 18 – How does the time in the Get help?

The Sages established that a divorce document (Get) needs to have the date of its writing in it. As we mentioned earlier, it could be to prevent the husband from covering up on the unfaithful wife or to prevent the husband from unfairly using his wife's property.

But consider the following scenario: a man fights with his wife, goes and asks a scribe to write a Get for her, but then carries it with him for a long time, hoping that the situation will improve, and nevertheless divorces later. This is valid, but the date in the Get will be incorrect. So what helps that the date is there? – People usually do not rush evil tidings, and one will not write a Get in advance.

But consider a standard case discussed on the first page: a messenger brings a Get from overseas. The date on it is undoubtedly way early compared to the giving of the Get! – In such cases, due to the court proceeding, it is well known when the divorce occurred, and all know that the date on the Get is incorrect.

The Talmud asks more questions about the date in the Get and concludes that it can be relied on in most cases and that the exceptions can be dealt with separately.

Art: The Argument by William Henry Knight