I received the following email yesterday:
As I am sure you are aware, there has recently been a great effort by the Jewish Community to help free Tamar Epstein from the chains of being an Agunah. Her ex-Husband (they are civilly divorced) is an aide for the prominent House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative Dave Camp. Recent efforts have focused on pressuring Rep. Camp to make a statement condemning all forms of emotional abuse including Get refusal.
This is especially critical because he has previously referred to this issue as “gossip”.
For several days hundreds of people posted on his facebook page. Unfortunately Camp did not respond and instead disabled his wall. This aspect has been covered by Politico, Foxnews, and The Jewish Week.
We are now making an effort to have the public sign a petition (which has over 3,000 signatures ) asking Camp to make a statement. See https://www.change.org/petitions/us-rep-for-the-4th-district-of-michigan-stand-up-against-abuse.
I state explicitly that I have not looked into the details of Aharon Friedman's claims. If that disqualifies my support for the petition in your eyes, so be it. However, I believe that a Get must never, under any circumstances, be used as a weapon or as leverage.
I have written about Agunah issues elsewhere on this blog; see, for example, this post from 2008. I believe they are best handled without direct pressure and head-to-head battles. That said, I know there is room for such pressure as well, and I pray that this pressure will succeed.
Showing posts with label Jewish community: Agunah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish community: Agunah. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
Monday, October 6, 2008
Daf: Gittin 65-70 – Demonology, Rabbi Akiva, Talmudic medicine, More Demonology
Another installment of notes on Daf Yomi, falling farther and farther (further and further?) behind… If this isn’t your thing, check back later; I expect to post my thoughts on an interesting Unity Kollel concept.
Gittin 65b
The mishnah said that if a woman who is married to a kohen tells someone, “Receive my get in Location X,” she may eat terumah, as a fully married woman, until her agent arrives in Location X. In discussing the case, the gemara asks what would happen if the agent received the get in some other location, and ends up discussing a case in which she tells her agent, “Receive the get wherever you can, but it won’t be a get until you arrive in Location X.” This is problematic, though – for we require a specific act of transfer to validate the get, and the transfer into her possession doesn’t take place in Location X!
Tosafot גיטא suggests the somewhat convoluted explanation that she told her agent to tell the husband to appoint him as a delivery agent for the husband until he arrives in Location X, and then in Location X he will become the wife’s receiving agent. Alternatively, he acts as a receiving agent for an extended act of receiving, through the duration of that trip to Location X.
Gittin 66a
How are we to understand the demonology in the gemara's question here (“Should I be concerned that the voice in the pit saying ‘Divorce my wife for me’ is that of a demon?”), affecting this most practical area of law? Theoretically one could understand it as a matter of hallucination, and the gemara’s concern is that the passerby hallucinates seeing an outline in a pit and imagines hearing voices. However, this is hard to fit into the general framework of talmudic demonology.
Gittin 66b
Presumably, in the middle of the page, it should be משום רבי and not אמר רבי – Shemuel did not study under Rebbe, but could have cited things he learned in Rebbe’s name.
Gittin 67a
The gemara comments that Rabbi Akiva was like an אוצר בלום, a storehouse in which all items are stored in proper compartments (see Rashi on אוצר בלום). Rashi notes the division of R’ Akiva’s learning into the different bodies of midrash: Sifri, Sifra, etc.
It is worth noting that Rabbi Akiva’s students (the latter set, after the plague) ended up being the ones to record these bodies of midrash. There are a few different versions of the list of R’ Akiva’s students, but all versions include at least some of the names listed in Sanhedrin 86 as editors of those bodies of midrash: Rabbi Meir (teacher of Rebbe who edited the mishnah, and author of unattributed mishnayot), Rabbi Shimon (editor of Sifri), Rabbi Yehudah (editor of Sifra), Rabbi Nechemyah (editor of Tosefta) and Rabbi Yosi (editor of Seder Olam).
Gittin 67b
The gemara now begins a long record of medicines and therapies. Note Rav Hai Gaon’s teshuvah to students who wanted to implement these medicines; he strongly forbade it, saying that the sages were recording the medicine of their day, and it should not be used. I could discuss this much more, but some other time.
Some of the medicines and therapies we see here look very odd to us, but recall the gemara in Shabbat, regarding amulets: They only trusted treatments which they had seen work three times in a row, without an intervening failure. They were using classic empirical methods.
Gittin 68a
Here we get into some serious demonology. Note that Rav Hai Gaon - in a teshuvah – attributes talmudic demonology, which is more prevalent in the Babylonian Talmud than in the Talmud Yerushalmi, to influence of other cultures. He explains its relative sparseness in Yerushalmi as a result of being farther from Persian society.
Tosafot וכתיב notes that we have a speaker in the day of Shlomo haMelech quoting a pasuk which won’t appear for centuries, until the time of Hosheia! But he explains that the concept of the pasuk was knownlong before the prophecy in which it was recorded.
Gittin 70b
Tosafot וניחוש at the bottom of the page clearly indicates that our assumption, in handling agunah cases, must be on the side that will result in freeing an agunah. Note that he takes Rashi's definition of "agunah," that the husband is known and present but is not living with her in the manner of husband and wife (over Rashba's explanation that an agunah is a woman who is unsure whether or not she is married).
Gittin 65b
The mishnah said that if a woman who is married to a kohen tells someone, “Receive my get in Location X,” she may eat terumah, as a fully married woman, until her agent arrives in Location X. In discussing the case, the gemara asks what would happen if the agent received the get in some other location, and ends up discussing a case in which she tells her agent, “Receive the get wherever you can, but it won’t be a get until you arrive in Location X.” This is problematic, though – for we require a specific act of transfer to validate the get, and the transfer into her possession doesn’t take place in Location X!
Tosafot גיטא suggests the somewhat convoluted explanation that she told her agent to tell the husband to appoint him as a delivery agent for the husband until he arrives in Location X, and then in Location X he will become the wife’s receiving agent. Alternatively, he acts as a receiving agent for an extended act of receiving, through the duration of that trip to Location X.
Gittin 66a
How are we to understand the demonology in the gemara's question here (“Should I be concerned that the voice in the pit saying ‘Divorce my wife for me’ is that of a demon?”), affecting this most practical area of law? Theoretically one could understand it as a matter of hallucination, and the gemara’s concern is that the passerby hallucinates seeing an outline in a pit and imagines hearing voices. However, this is hard to fit into the general framework of talmudic demonology.
Gittin 66b
Presumably, in the middle of the page, it should be משום רבי and not אמר רבי – Shemuel did not study under Rebbe, but could have cited things he learned in Rebbe’s name.
Gittin 67a
The gemara comments that Rabbi Akiva was like an אוצר בלום, a storehouse in which all items are stored in proper compartments (see Rashi on אוצר בלום). Rashi notes the division of R’ Akiva’s learning into the different bodies of midrash: Sifri, Sifra, etc.
It is worth noting that Rabbi Akiva’s students (the latter set, after the plague) ended up being the ones to record these bodies of midrash. There are a few different versions of the list of R’ Akiva’s students, but all versions include at least some of the names listed in Sanhedrin 86 as editors of those bodies of midrash: Rabbi Meir (teacher of Rebbe who edited the mishnah, and author of unattributed mishnayot), Rabbi Shimon (editor of Sifri), Rabbi Yehudah (editor of Sifra), Rabbi Nechemyah (editor of Tosefta) and Rabbi Yosi (editor of Seder Olam).
Gittin 67b
The gemara now begins a long record of medicines and therapies. Note Rav Hai Gaon’s teshuvah to students who wanted to implement these medicines; he strongly forbade it, saying that the sages were recording the medicine of their day, and it should not be used. I could discuss this much more, but some other time.
Some of the medicines and therapies we see here look very odd to us, but recall the gemara in Shabbat, regarding amulets: They only trusted treatments which they had seen work three times in a row, without an intervening failure. They were using classic empirical methods.
Gittin 68a
Here we get into some serious demonology. Note that Rav Hai Gaon - in a teshuvah – attributes talmudic demonology, which is more prevalent in the Babylonian Talmud than in the Talmud Yerushalmi, to influence of other cultures. He explains its relative sparseness in Yerushalmi as a result of being farther from Persian society.
Tosafot וכתיב notes that we have a speaker in the day of Shlomo haMelech quoting a pasuk which won’t appear for centuries, until the time of Hosheia! But he explains that the concept of the pasuk was knownlong before the prophecy in which it was recorded.
Gittin 70b
Tosafot וניחוש at the bottom of the page clearly indicates that our assumption, in handling agunah cases, must be on the side that will result in freeing an agunah. Note that he takes Rashi's definition of "agunah," that the husband is known and present but is not living with her in the manner of husband and wife (over Rashba's explanation that an agunah is a woman who is unsure whether or not she is married).
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Agunah Crisis: The role of the creative community rabbi
A couple of weeks ago, A Living Nadneyda posted the following comment on my post about Noachide weddings:
Several modern dilemmas of halacha have been waiting eons for creativity to help us save our own society (I am thinking especially of msuravot get). The same level of creativity called upon to unite the Noachides, could be harvested to disband a suffering union.
ALN’s words made me realize that there is a disconnect between the experience of many community rabbis and the perception of the broader Jewish community, regarding the issue of msuravei get (people whose spouses refuse to cooperate with divorce) and agunot (women whose husbands have disappeared).
To put it simply: Community rabbis see the many, many cases in which they successfully arrange for gittin or otherwise free spouses, despite very difficult circumstances. The public, though, only sees the headline cases, in which the rabbis fail.
Clearly, even one case of a woman – or man – who is unable to be divorced is too many. We can never be satisfied with our successes. However, I wish people knew how much sweat and creativity our community rabbis do currently put into enabling gittin, and how successful many of us are in doing so.
I am glad to say that I have not had more than 20-25 divorce cases in my career thusfar, but some of those have been doozies:
I have had cases in which a wife has adamantly refused to receive a Get, in order to hurt her husband or in order to get a better financial settlement. I never want to go the heter meah rabbonim route, so I have had to find ways to make the wife comfortable with receiving a Get.
I have had cases of husbands who have refused to give a Get. It’s usually a financial issue, but there are ways to deal with that – most often by holding the petur (document licensing re-marriage) in escrow until the financial package works out in the civil courts, or by using social pressure. I have also raised money to make the Get possible.
In one memorable case I called the stubborn husband’s 80-year-old mother in Israel at 2 AM her time, to let her know what her son was doing. Fifteen minutes later he was on the phone with me, agreeing to give the Get.
For the more recalcitrant cases, and for cases of agunah where the husband was incompetent to present a get, legitimate halachic authorities use other approaches, including finding reasons to disqualify the original marriage.
My experience is not unique; I know there are many rabbis in my shoes across the United States (I ma not as familiar with the international scene), doing the same things I am doing, every day.
There will always be people who will argue that rabbis possess, and should use, the power to change the rules altogether. Feel free to tell me that rabbis aren’t using the legislative authority assigned to us by the Torah; I disagree, but I know what you mean. But do realize that we are trying hard, within the parameters we understand to be the halachah, to set the agunot and mesuravot get free.
And please, please, use the halachic pre-nuptial agreement endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America. It’s quick and easy, and if everyone would use it, it would save lives.
Several modern dilemmas of halacha have been waiting eons for creativity to help us save our own society (I am thinking especially of msuravot get). The same level of creativity called upon to unite the Noachides, could be harvested to disband a suffering union.
ALN’s words made me realize that there is a disconnect between the experience of many community rabbis and the perception of the broader Jewish community, regarding the issue of msuravei get (people whose spouses refuse to cooperate with divorce) and agunot (women whose husbands have disappeared).
To put it simply: Community rabbis see the many, many cases in which they successfully arrange for gittin or otherwise free spouses, despite very difficult circumstances. The public, though, only sees the headline cases, in which the rabbis fail.
Clearly, even one case of a woman – or man – who is unable to be divorced is too many. We can never be satisfied with our successes. However, I wish people knew how much sweat and creativity our community rabbis do currently put into enabling gittin, and how successful many of us are in doing so.
I am glad to say that I have not had more than 20-25 divorce cases in my career thusfar, but some of those have been doozies:
I have had cases in which a wife has adamantly refused to receive a Get, in order to hurt her husband or in order to get a better financial settlement. I never want to go the heter meah rabbonim route, so I have had to find ways to make the wife comfortable with receiving a Get.
I have had cases of husbands who have refused to give a Get. It’s usually a financial issue, but there are ways to deal with that – most often by holding the petur (document licensing re-marriage) in escrow until the financial package works out in the civil courts, or by using social pressure. I have also raised money to make the Get possible.
In one memorable case I called the stubborn husband’s 80-year-old mother in Israel at 2 AM her time, to let her know what her son was doing. Fifteen minutes later he was on the phone with me, agreeing to give the Get.
For the more recalcitrant cases, and for cases of agunah where the husband was incompetent to present a get, legitimate halachic authorities use other approaches, including finding reasons to disqualify the original marriage.
My experience is not unique; I know there are many rabbis in my shoes across the United States (I ma not as familiar with the international scene), doing the same things I am doing, every day.
There will always be people who will argue that rabbis possess, and should use, the power to change the rules altogether. Feel free to tell me that rabbis aren’t using the legislative authority assigned to us by the Torah; I disagree, but I know what you mean. But do realize that we are trying hard, within the parameters we understand to be the halachah, to set the agunot and mesuravot get free.
And please, please, use the halachic pre-nuptial agreement endorsed by the Rabbinical Council of America. It’s quick and easy, and if everyone would use it, it would save lives.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Gittin 33-36 - Agunah, Nachmeni and Punishment for swearing falsely and in vain
Some notes on recent pages studied in the Daf Yomi. Possibly of interest to Daffies; all others, feel free to read or skip as you choose.
Gittin 33a
As we have already noted, the Rashba and Rashi have two different definitions of “agunah” as a technical term.
-Rashba says it refers to a woman who does not know whether she is married.
-Rashi says it also refers to a woman who is married, but is not able to live with her husband.
Therefore, on Gittin 32a when the gemara says that one may not nullify a get after giving it to a delivery agent, unless in the present of the agent, Rashi explains that this is because the husband may just be trying to pain her - making her an agunah - because now she will remain married to him, but be emotionally distant from him.
Rashba, though, would not consider that an agunah situation. Therefore, Rashba says it’s actually לצעוריה קא מכוין, something which pains the delivery agent. The fear is that all agents will have to wonder whether they are on a fool’s errand. Therefore, they will hesitate to deliver gittin. It is not about agunah at all.
However, this approach to 32a creates a problem on 33a, where the gemara says explicitly (in Reish Lakish’s view) that this is a matter of agunah! So the Rashba explains that we have an additional concern, that she might hear that the get has been annulled but not know whether it was annulled before or after she received it. Thus she does not know whether she is married - fitting Rashba’s definition of agunah.
The gemara here discusses הפקעת קידושין, annulment of marriage, a fascinating topic. Certainly, one must see the very interesting remarks of Tosafot ואפקעינהו here. See, too, the opinions brought in Shitah Mekubetzet to Ketuvot 2b.
Gittin 34a
Rashi and Tosafot disagree on how legal guardians (אפטרופוס) of inheriting orphans function. Rashi says they choose portions of the estate for their charges. Tosafot disagrees and argues that the court does the distribution, and the guardians then take care of the property put into their care.
Gittin 34b
See the note in R’ Akiva Eiger’s Gilyon haShas on possible sources of the title נחמני Nachmeni given to Abbaye. Rashi’s explanation (that Rabbah bar Nachmeni was his guardian) is the familiar one, but there is another possibility, as R’ Akiva Eiger shows.
The gemara says we record the names of parties in a get, and record “וכל שום שיש לו,” “and any other name he has.” Tosafot brings two views, one that we literally write וכל שום שיש לו, the other that we record the actual other names. We follow the latter view.
Gittin 35a
The gemara presents a story in which a woman swore falsely, by mistake, regarding an item in her care, and suffered as a result. Tosafot לא asks why she was punished, since we say that a person who is forced by circumstance to swear falsely does not bring a korban. Tosafot offers two answers: (1) That one in such a situation doesn’t bring a korban, but is subject to punishment, or (2) That she was careless regarding an item she was supposed to guard, and that carelessness was what led to the false oath. She is liable for the carelessness.
For a strong statement against oaths, verging on declaring all oaths to be שבועת שוא, oaths in vain, see Sefer Chasidim 418-419.
Rashi חוץ לבית דין משביעין is very important for a core understanding of the vows we are discussing here.
Gittin 35b
Interesting; the gemara here uses הפרה when it really means התרה; a judge does התרה, not הפרה. This is surprising; Bava Batra 120b says that if a judge uses the term הפרה, saying “מופר לך”, the vow is not annuled!
Gittin 33a
As we have already noted, the Rashba and Rashi have two different definitions of “agunah” as a technical term.
-Rashba says it refers to a woman who does not know whether she is married.
-Rashi says it also refers to a woman who is married, but is not able to live with her husband.
Therefore, on Gittin 32a when the gemara says that one may not nullify a get after giving it to a delivery agent, unless in the present of the agent, Rashi explains that this is because the husband may just be trying to pain her - making her an agunah - because now she will remain married to him, but be emotionally distant from him.
Rashba, though, would not consider that an agunah situation. Therefore, Rashba says it’s actually לצעוריה קא מכוין, something which pains the delivery agent. The fear is that all agents will have to wonder whether they are on a fool’s errand. Therefore, they will hesitate to deliver gittin. It is not about agunah at all.
However, this approach to 32a creates a problem on 33a, where the gemara says explicitly (in Reish Lakish’s view) that this is a matter of agunah! So the Rashba explains that we have an additional concern, that she might hear that the get has been annulled but not know whether it was annulled before or after she received it. Thus she does not know whether she is married - fitting Rashba’s definition of agunah.
The gemara here discusses הפקעת קידושין, annulment of marriage, a fascinating topic. Certainly, one must see the very interesting remarks of Tosafot ואפקעינהו here. See, too, the opinions brought in Shitah Mekubetzet to Ketuvot 2b.
Gittin 34a
Rashi and Tosafot disagree on how legal guardians (אפטרופוס) of inheriting orphans function. Rashi says they choose portions of the estate for their charges. Tosafot disagrees and argues that the court does the distribution, and the guardians then take care of the property put into their care.
Gittin 34b
See the note in R’ Akiva Eiger’s Gilyon haShas on possible sources of the title נחמני Nachmeni given to Abbaye. Rashi’s explanation (that Rabbah bar Nachmeni was his guardian) is the familiar one, but there is another possibility, as R’ Akiva Eiger shows.
The gemara says we record the names of parties in a get, and record “וכל שום שיש לו,” “and any other name he has.” Tosafot brings two views, one that we literally write וכל שום שיש לו, the other that we record the actual other names. We follow the latter view.
Gittin 35a
The gemara presents a story in which a woman swore falsely, by mistake, regarding an item in her care, and suffered as a result. Tosafot לא asks why she was punished, since we say that a person who is forced by circumstance to swear falsely does not bring a korban. Tosafot offers two answers: (1) That one in such a situation doesn’t bring a korban, but is subject to punishment, or (2) That she was careless regarding an item she was supposed to guard, and that carelessness was what led to the false oath. She is liable for the carelessness.
For a strong statement against oaths, verging on declaring all oaths to be שבועת שוא, oaths in vain, see Sefer Chasidim 418-419.
Rashi חוץ לבית דין משביעין is very important for a core understanding of the vows we are discussing here.
Gittin 35b
Interesting; the gemara here uses הפרה when it really means התרה; a judge does התרה, not הפרה. This is surprising; Bava Batra 120b says that if a judge uses the term הפרה, saying “מופר לך”, the vow is not annuled!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Gittin 28-32 – Aging, Agunot, Reductio ad absurdum and the Negev’s Hadley Cell
This week we have a bat mitzvah in shul, and the derashah is really centered on that bat mitzvah, so I won’t be posting it for at-large reading. Here are some notes from recent Daf Yomi topics, though. For those learning Daf Yomi this may be of interest.
For all others – Haveil Havalim is located here on Sunday; see you then!
Gittin 28a
Why am I confident that if I find a Get among a man’s own personal effects, I can be sure it is his? Rashi says it’s because the Get is in his house, but Tosafot או seems to disagree; he says the issue is not the house, since many people may pass through the house, but rather it’s the fact that the Get is among his personal effects.
Statistically, people who reach a certain age without developing key diseases are likely to reach a very old age. The gemara noted this here in its כיון דאיפליג איפליג comment - "once a person has reached a certain age in good health, we expect him to reach an unusually great age."
The gemara says that a proxy sent to deliver a Get need not be concerned that the sender may have died before the delivery, because “it would be impossible” to worry about this. Rashi explains this in light of his definition of Agunah. Rashi takes “Agunah” to refer to a woman who is married but unable to live with her husband, even just because of physical distance, and so he understands that the gemara is concerned with providing a mechanism through which a Get may be delivered long-distance, to prevent this Agunah circumstance.
Gittin 28b
One view in our gemara says that even if we were concerned that a Get-sender might die before delivery, one could still drink from a barrel with the expectation of tithing at the end, and not be concerned lest the barrel break in the interim, since one could appoint someone to guard the barrel. The gemara then asks, “But who will watch the watchman?”
In other circumstances, such as the beginning of Yoma, the gemara answers such reductio ad absurdum questions by saying, “אין לדבר סוף, There is a limit to what we can do.” The gemara here does not give that answer.
I think the reason we do not give that answer here is that here we have a real, practical concern about an existing problem, and we cannot answer that by saying, “Oh, well, we can’t worry about that.” In the other cases, though (like in the beginning of Yoma regarding setting up a backup wife for a Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur), the idea is a positive enactment to forestall a problem later, and there is a limit to how much forestalling we can do.
In other words: In our case, if the barrel breaks then he drank untithed produce. This is a pressing problem, and it’s right here. In the other cases, if the Kohen Gadol’s wife dies then we simply need to appoint a new Kohen Gadol for Yom Kippur.
Rashi קומנטריסין seems to have a typo – it should be להרוג, not ליהרג. A rather significant difference!
The gemara here talks about believing a secular court when it declares,מסיח לפי תומו, that it has executed someone. The gemara in Bava Kama 114b limits such declarations, saying they apply only to permit a woman to remarry or remain with her husband, or for a rabbinic issue.
Gittin 29a
We know that a court may well find merit for the defendant after the verdict is in; when the gemara says that doesn’t happen, it means that this is not common. (Rashi, Tosafot)
Gittin 30a
See Tosafot מי.
Gittin 30b
The third answer on the page seems to rely on changing the braita, reversing the חוששין and the אין חוששין.
Gittin 31a
Rashi brings two explanations of “when the water gathers in the בוסר”, in the former talking about unripe grapes filling with fluid as they ripen, and in the latter talking about water being added to the pressing of terminally underripe grapes, to produce vinegar. The latter fits our general use of בוסר, as grapes which will never ripen. See Tosafot ובשעת, though.
Gittin 31b
The gemara here spends quite a bit of time on the importance of the winds for the survival of the world. The gemara does this elsewhere, as well.
Certainly, in Israel the winds are of grave importance. The “Hadley cell” formed by hot air rising at the equator, flowing to the 30-degree latitude and then cooling and descending in the Negev causes the Negev air to soak up moisture, which is what dries out that area and prevents rainfall. Changes in wind strength and direction could affect the resulting dryness and temperature.
Gittin 32a
Tosafot מהו points out that a Get may be annulled without witnesses, but that we require clearcut knowledge of his intentions before the Get is delivered.
Gittin 32b
A husband wrote a Get, hired a delivery agent, and then cancelled the Get. The gemara asks if he may then re-start the mission, using the same Get document.
On the face of it, there should be no problem doing this; why is this a question? I heard in the name of Rav Herschel Schachter that the problem might be the interruption between writing (וכתב) and delivering (ונתן) the Get.
For all others – Haveil Havalim is located here on Sunday; see you then!
Gittin 28a
Why am I confident that if I find a Get among a man’s own personal effects, I can be sure it is his? Rashi says it’s because the Get is in his house, but Tosafot או seems to disagree; he says the issue is not the house, since many people may pass through the house, but rather it’s the fact that the Get is among his personal effects.
Statistically, people who reach a certain age without developing key diseases are likely to reach a very old age. The gemara noted this here in its כיון דאיפליג איפליג comment - "once a person has reached a certain age in good health, we expect him to reach an unusually great age."
The gemara says that a proxy sent to deliver a Get need not be concerned that the sender may have died before the delivery, because “it would be impossible” to worry about this. Rashi explains this in light of his definition of Agunah. Rashi takes “Agunah” to refer to a woman who is married but unable to live with her husband, even just because of physical distance, and so he understands that the gemara is concerned with providing a mechanism through which a Get may be delivered long-distance, to prevent this Agunah circumstance.
Gittin 28b
One view in our gemara says that even if we were concerned that a Get-sender might die before delivery, one could still drink from a barrel with the expectation of tithing at the end, and not be concerned lest the barrel break in the interim, since one could appoint someone to guard the barrel. The gemara then asks, “But who will watch the watchman?”
In other circumstances, such as the beginning of Yoma, the gemara answers such reductio ad absurdum questions by saying, “אין לדבר סוף, There is a limit to what we can do.” The gemara here does not give that answer.
I think the reason we do not give that answer here is that here we have a real, practical concern about an existing problem, and we cannot answer that by saying, “Oh, well, we can’t worry about that.” In the other cases, though (like in the beginning of Yoma regarding setting up a backup wife for a Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur), the idea is a positive enactment to forestall a problem later, and there is a limit to how much forestalling we can do.
In other words: In our case, if the barrel breaks then he drank untithed produce. This is a pressing problem, and it’s right here. In the other cases, if the Kohen Gadol’s wife dies then we simply need to appoint a new Kohen Gadol for Yom Kippur.
Rashi קומנטריסין seems to have a typo – it should be להרוג, not ליהרג. A rather significant difference!
The gemara here talks about believing a secular court when it declares,מסיח לפי תומו, that it has executed someone. The gemara in Bava Kama 114b limits such declarations, saying they apply only to permit a woman to remarry or remain with her husband, or for a rabbinic issue.
Gittin 29a
We know that a court may well find merit for the defendant after the verdict is in; when the gemara says that doesn’t happen, it means that this is not common. (Rashi, Tosafot)
Gittin 30a
See Tosafot מי.
Gittin 30b
The third answer on the page seems to rely on changing the braita, reversing the חוששין and the אין חוששין.
Gittin 31a
Rashi brings two explanations of “when the water gathers in the בוסר”, in the former talking about unripe grapes filling with fluid as they ripen, and in the latter talking about water being added to the pressing of terminally underripe grapes, to produce vinegar. The latter fits our general use of בוסר, as grapes which will never ripen. See Tosafot ובשעת, though.
Gittin 31b
The gemara here spends quite a bit of time on the importance of the winds for the survival of the world. The gemara does this elsewhere, as well.
Certainly, in Israel the winds are of grave importance. The “Hadley cell” formed by hot air rising at the equator, flowing to the 30-degree latitude and then cooling and descending in the Negev causes the Negev air to soak up moisture, which is what dries out that area and prevents rainfall. Changes in wind strength and direction could affect the resulting dryness and temperature.
Gittin 32a
Tosafot מהו points out that a Get may be annulled without witnesses, but that we require clearcut knowledge of his intentions before the Get is delivered.
Gittin 32b
A husband wrote a Get, hired a delivery agent, and then cancelled the Get. The gemara asks if he may then re-start the mission, using the same Get document.
On the face of it, there should be no problem doing this; why is this a question? I heard in the name of Rav Herschel Schachter that the problem might be the interruption between writing (וכתב) and delivering (ונתן) the Get.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Gittin 24-27 – The Agunah problem of a pre-fab Get
Pretty dull notes here for anyone who is not currently studying Gittin. About the only point you might find interesting is the discussion of why pre-fab Gittin are not acceptable, below at Gittin 26b. Otherwise, feel free to jump to some other post.
Gittin 24a
Note that throughout the page, דמטית התם should be דמטית להתם
Gittin 24b
If this idea of ברירה seems odd to you, since it depends on a later action of mine to resolve the current doubt – and not for a later independent event, the way it usually does – don’t be alarmed. The gemara will discuss this on 25-26.
Note the Rava/Rabbah change toward the bottom of this page; it’s because Abayye is presented as challenging Rava’s statement, and Abayye doesn’t do that with Rava, his student. He does it with Rabbah, his rebbe.
Gittin 26a
Rabbi Eliezer’s view, in the end of the mishnah, is unclear. Rashi seems to think he is approving writing the boilerplate part of the document in advance, and leaving the names out. Tosafot, though, makes the case (based on a discussion toward the end of 26b) that Rabbi Eliezer is actually approving writing the entire thing in advance.
Worth noting: The word “משום” is seen here as a term of indirect association with a source (in this case, a pasuk; the more direct term is שנאמר). We do the same thing in other passages when a law is cited משום a certain authority – we assume that it was not heard directly from that authority, but rather it was heard from someone else in his name.
Gittin 26b
Agunah law: The gemara discusses a pre-fab get, a case in which a scribe writes a get in advance, and a man whose name matches that of the man in the get, and whose wife’s name matches the wife’s name in the get, is involved in a domestic dispute and grabs the get and throws it to his wife – so that his wife is left as an agunah (to use the gemara’s terminology). To forestall such a possibility, the gemara prohibits scribes from having such “ready documents” lying around.
However: It is not clear why she is an agunah here; she is validly divorced!
1) I made a note in my gemara’s margin some 15-20 years ago that perhaps, due to the haste of the case, the get was not signed by witnesses, and so there is debate as to its validity – and this is why she is left as an agunah. I don’t know where I saw this idea, though.
2) Rashba takes a similar approach, reading “threw” literally and says that he threw it to her and left town, and it is not clear whether the get was closer to him or to her, so that her status is in doubt.
3) Rashi, though, has a different definition of “agunah.” He says that we are not dealing with a doubtful situation; rather, the concern is that the hasty husband will find a ready-made get and divorce his wife quickly. The term “agunah” then means simply that she will lack a husband. This is consistent with Rashi’s comment in Sanhedrin 107a מעונות defining “agunah” not as a woman whose marital status is in doubt, but rather as a woman whose husband fails to live with her conjugally. The sages see this situation as painful for her, and legislate to avoid it.
Gittin 27b
Tosafot סימנים unpacks the gemara’s point about whether we rely on “unique characteristics - סימנים” as identification biblically or rabbinically.
The idea is that true proof can come only through witnesses, as seen from the courtroom disqualification of circumstantial evidence. So according to the view that “unique characteristics” are only accepted as identification rabbinically, the biblical rule would be that we needed witnesses for all purposes of identification, such as claiming lost objects, or identifying a corpse.
Tosafot ודוקא explains why I would be more likely to believe a talmid chacham on his own stated recognition of an item.
Gittin 24a
Note that throughout the page, דמטית התם should be דמטית להתם
Gittin 24b
If this idea of ברירה seems odd to you, since it depends on a later action of mine to resolve the current doubt – and not for a later independent event, the way it usually does – don’t be alarmed. The gemara will discuss this on 25-26.
Note the Rava/Rabbah change toward the bottom of this page; it’s because Abayye is presented as challenging Rava’s statement, and Abayye doesn’t do that with Rava, his student. He does it with Rabbah, his rebbe.
Gittin 26a
Rabbi Eliezer’s view, in the end of the mishnah, is unclear. Rashi seems to think he is approving writing the boilerplate part of the document in advance, and leaving the names out. Tosafot, though, makes the case (based on a discussion toward the end of 26b) that Rabbi Eliezer is actually approving writing the entire thing in advance.
Worth noting: The word “משום” is seen here as a term of indirect association with a source (in this case, a pasuk; the more direct term is שנאמר). We do the same thing in other passages when a law is cited משום a certain authority – we assume that it was not heard directly from that authority, but rather it was heard from someone else in his name.
Gittin 26b
Agunah law: The gemara discusses a pre-fab get, a case in which a scribe writes a get in advance, and a man whose name matches that of the man in the get, and whose wife’s name matches the wife’s name in the get, is involved in a domestic dispute and grabs the get and throws it to his wife – so that his wife is left as an agunah (to use the gemara’s terminology). To forestall such a possibility, the gemara prohibits scribes from having such “ready documents” lying around.
However: It is not clear why she is an agunah here; she is validly divorced!
1) I made a note in my gemara’s margin some 15-20 years ago that perhaps, due to the haste of the case, the get was not signed by witnesses, and so there is debate as to its validity – and this is why she is left as an agunah. I don’t know where I saw this idea, though.
2) Rashba takes a similar approach, reading “threw” literally and says that he threw it to her and left town, and it is not clear whether the get was closer to him or to her, so that her status is in doubt.
3) Rashi, though, has a different definition of “agunah.” He says that we are not dealing with a doubtful situation; rather, the concern is that the hasty husband will find a ready-made get and divorce his wife quickly. The term “agunah” then means simply that she will lack a husband. This is consistent with Rashi’s comment in Sanhedrin 107a מעונות defining “agunah” not as a woman whose marital status is in doubt, but rather as a woman whose husband fails to live with her conjugally. The sages see this situation as painful for her, and legislate to avoid it.
Gittin 27b
Tosafot סימנים unpacks the gemara’s point about whether we rely on “unique characteristics - סימנים” as identification biblically or rabbinically.
The idea is that true proof can come only through witnesses, as seen from the courtroom disqualification of circumstantial evidence. So according to the view that “unique characteristics” are only accepted as identification rabbinically, the biblical rule would be that we needed witnesses for all purposes of identification, such as claiming lost objects, or identifying a corpse.
Tosafot ודוקא explains why I would be more likely to believe a talmid chacham on his own stated recognition of an item.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)