Divorce As Paradigm

Daf Ditty Eruvin 15:Divorce as Paradigm

, ׳יִנְתַמ לֹכַּבּ ןיִשׂוֹע ןִיַיָחְל וּלּיִפֲא רָבָדְבּ שֵׁיֶּשׁ וֹבּ ַחוּר יַּח ִ ,םי יִבַּרְו ריִאֵמ .רֵסוֹא אֵמַּטְמוּ םוּשִּׁמ ֵלוֹגּ ל

MISHNA: One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, and Rabbi Meir prohibits using a living creature as a side post. The mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity if it used as the covering of a grave.

. יִבַּרְו ריִאֵמ .רֵהַטְמ ןיִבְתוֹכְו ויָלָﬠ יֵטּיִגּ ,םיִשָׁנ יִבַּרְו יֵסוֹי יִליִלְגַּה לֵסוֹפּ יִליִלְגַּה יֵסוֹי יִבַּרְו ,םיִשָׁנ יֵטּיִגּ ויָלָﬠ ןיִבְתוֹכְו

2 But Rabbi Meir deems it pure. Likewise, one may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.

׳ָמְגּ ,אָיְנַתּ יִבַּר ריִאֵמ :רֵמוֹא לָכּ רָבָדּ שֵׁיֶּשׁ וֹבּ ַחוּר יַּח ִ םי ןיֵא ןיִשׂוֹע וֹתוֹא אֹל ןֶפוֹדּ הָכּוּסְל אֹלְו ִחֶל י מְל ,יוֹבָ ֹל א סַּפּ ןיִ ןיִ סַּפּ א ֹל ,יוֹבָ מְל י . תוֹאָריֵבְל אֹלְו לֵלוֹגּ .רֶבֶקְל םוּשִּׁמ יִבַּר יֵסוֹי יִליִלְגַּה וּרְמָא : ףַא ןיֵא בְתוֹכּ ןיִ לָﬠ ָ וי ִ גּ יֵטּי םיִשָׁ נ יֵטּי ִ גּ וי ָ לָﬠ ןיִ בְתוֹכּ ןיֵא ףַא :

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: An animate object may neither be used as a wall for a sukkah, nor as a side post for an alleyway, nor as one of the upright boards surrounding a well, nor as the covering of a grave. They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Nor may one write women’s bills of divorce on it.

יאַמ אָמְﬠַט יִבַּרְדּ יֵסוֹי ,יִליִלְגַּה :אָיְנַתְדּ ,״רֶפֵס״ ןיֵא יִל אָלֶּא .רֶפֵס יַנִּמ ןיִ וֹבַּרְל ת לָ כּ בָ דּ ?רָ לַ תּ דוּמְ מוֹל רַ ו״ כְ תָ בַ ,״הָּ ל כִּ מ לׇ לׇ כִּ מ ,״הָּ ל בַ תָ כְ ו״ רַ מוֹל דוּמְ לַ תּ ?רָ בָ דּ לָ כּ ת .םוֹקָמ םִא ןֵכּ הָמ דוּמְלַתּ רַמוֹל ?״רֶפֵס״ רַמוֹל :ָל הָמ רֶפֵס רָבָדּ ןיֵאֶשׁ וֹבּ ַחוּר יַּח ִ םי וֹניֵאְו ,לֶכוֹא ףַא לָכּ רָבָדּ ןיֵאֶשׁ וֹבּ ַחוּר ַחוּר וֹבּ ןיֵאֶשׁ רָבָדּ לָכּ . יַּח ִ םי וֹניֵאְו לֶכוֹא וֹניֵאְו םי

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse:

When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth 1 א יִכּ - חַקִּי שׁיִא ,הָשִּׁא ;הָּלָﬠְבוּ הָיָהְו םִא - ֹל א מִת אָצְ - ןֵח ןֵח her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no ,ויָניֵﬠְבּ יִכּ - אָצָמ הָּב תַוְרֶﬠ רָבָדּ -- בַתָכְו הָּל רֶפֵס תֻתיִרְכּ תֻתיִרְכּ favour in his eyes, because he hath found ָנְו ןַת ,הָּדָיְבּ הָּחְלִּשְׁו .וֹתיֵבִּמ הָּחְלִּשְׁו ,הָּדָיְבּ ןַת some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,

Deut 24:1

From the word scroll, I have derived that only a scroll is valid. From where is it derived to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written?

The Torah states: “That he write her,” in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. If so, why does the verse state “scroll”?

To tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food.

That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

. ?ןַנָבַּרְו יִמ ביִתְכּ ?״רֶפֵסְבּ״ ״רֶפֵס״ ,ביִתְכּ תוּריִפְסִל םיִרָבְדּ אָמְלָﬠְבּ אוּה אָתֲאַדּ אוּה אָמְלָﬠְבּ םיִרָבְדּ תוּריִפְסִל

3 The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: Is the verse written: “Let him write for her in the scroll [basefer],” indicating the only type of surface on which the bill of divorce may be written? No, scroll [sefer] is written, which comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirot devarim] is required.

In other words, sefer is referring not to the surface on which a bill of divorce must be written, but rather to the essence of the bill of divorce. The verse teaches that the bill of divorce must contain particular content.

,ןַנָבַּרְו יאַה בַתָכְו״ ״הָּל יאַמ יִשְׁרָדּ ?הּיֵבּ אוּהָה יֵﬠְבִּמ :הּיֵל הָביִתְכִבּ ,תֶשֶׁרָגְּתִמ הָּניֵאְו תֶשֶׁרָגְּתִמ .ףֶסֶכְבּ אָקְלָס ָתְּﬠַדּ ֵמָא ני :אָ :אָ ני . אוֹה ליִ אְ ו שַׁקַּתּיִ צְ י איִ הָ וֲהַל ָ הָי — הָמ הָיָוֲה ,ףֶסֶכְבּ ףַא הָאיִצְי .ףֶסֶכְבּ אָק עַמְשַׁמ ןַל עַמְשַׁמ אָק .ףֶסֶכְבּ הָאיִצְי ףַא ,ףֶסֶכְבּ הָיָוֲה הָמ

The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase “that he write her”?

The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then, just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: “That he write for her”; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.

. יִבַּרְו יֵסוֹי ,יִליִלְגַּה יאַה אָרָבְס אָנְמ ?הּיֵל אָקְפָנ הּיֵל רֶפֵסּ״ִמ :״תוּתיִרְכּ רֶפֵס ,הָּתְרוֹכּ ןיֵאְו רָבָדּ ַא רֵח רוֹכּ תְ הָּת וֹ

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning, that a woman cannot be divorced with money?

The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: A scroll of severance, which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him.

,ןַנָבַּרְו יאַה רֶפֵס״ ״תוּתיִרְכּ יֵﬠְבּיִמ הּיֵל רָבָדְל תֵרוֹכַּה וֹניֵבּ .הָּניֵבְל :אָיְנַתְדִכְל יֵרֲה הֶז ֵטּיִגּ ַﬠ ל נְ מ תָ אֹלֶּשׁ תְּשִׁ תּ יִ ַ י ,ןִ י לַﬠ תָנְמ תָנְמ . אֹלֶּשׁ יִכְלֵתּ תיֵבְל יִבָא םָלוֹעְל — ןיֵא הֶז .תוּתיִרְכּ לָכּ םיִשְׁשׁ םוֹי — יֵרֲה הֶז תוּתיִרְכּ הֶז יֵרֲה

The Gemara continues: And the Rabbis explain that this phrase: A scroll of severance, is required to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it was taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you will never drink wine, or on condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance; the bill of divorce is not valid.

If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce.

4 If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.

. יִבַּרְו יֵסוֹי ,יִליִלְגַּה אָקְפָנ הּיֵל ״תֵרָכּ״ִמ ״תוּתיִרְכּ״ ״תֵרָכּ״ִמ הּיֵל אָקְפָנ ,יִליִלְגַּה יֵסוֹי יִבַּרְו

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut.

Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches us two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.

. ןַנָבַּרְו כּ״ ָ ״תֵ ר כּ״ ְ ִ ר ״תוּתי ָ ל א ָ דּ שְׁ ר ִ יִשׁ אָל תת ״ ״ֵרָכּ

And as for the Rabbis, they do not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

The Mishna that begins at the bottom of daf 15a teaches:

One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, and Rabbi Meir prohibits using a living creature as a side post. The Mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity if it is used as the covering of a grave. But Rabbi Meir deems it pure. Likewise, one may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.

The Mishna states that a Lehi (side post) can be made of anything – even a live animal. As an aside, the Mishna continues by discussing the status of an animal that is used as a grave marker, or when a man chooses to divorce his wife by writing the get on a live animal, which works according to the Hakhamim, but does not according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

The Gemara explains that the disagreement between the Hakhamim and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili stems from different ways of understanding the passage in the Torah (Deut 24:1) that teaches the laws of divorce.

According to the Torah, a man who wants to divorce his wife must write a Sefer Keritut (a book of separation) in order to send her out of his house. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili understands that the divorce document must have some of the qualities of a book, including that it cannot be a live animal. The Hakhamim interpret the passage to mean that the divorce must offer total separation.

5 This teaches that if conditions are set down that make the permanence of the divorce questionable, then we do not have a Sefer Keritut, and the divorce is invalid.

This is only true if the conditions of the divorce are such that, even after separation, the wife is still obligated to her husband in some way. If, however, the condition is long-term (e.g. that the divorce is contingent on the woman never again stepping foot in her father’s house) but can be kept, according to many opinions the divorce is valid, but the woman must be careful to fulfill the condition, lest the divorce become invalid retroactively.

Shulchan Aruch: Even Ha’ezer 143: 20-21

ךירצ אלש הנתי הילע יאנת תדמועש וב לכ הימי וגכ ן מ"ע אלש ילכאת רשב וא אלש יתשת י י ן םלועל וא לכ ימי יח יכי כ ח מ םאש הנתה ךכ יא ן הז תותירכ לבא םא רמא הל לכ ימי יח י וא לכ ימי יח י ינולפ וא דע םישמח הנש ז"ה טג ו שי ימ מש ט זההשםשחד ו יופ ח מ ל ו יי יי כה מ אלאתתר ז ןי כהת א : בתכש יפאש ' ביחרה ןמזה י רתו ידכמ יח י םדאה יכ ו ן אוהש רבד קוספ ירה הז טג הז ירה קוספ רבד אוהש ן ו יכ םדאה י יח ידכמ רתו י ןמזה ביחרה ' יפאש בתכש

He must not require of her any conditions which apply for her entire lifetime such as: "on condition that you do not eat meat or drink wine", or "that you never drink wine", or "for all the days of your life" as if he forced her to to accept these conditions this is not a dissolution of the marriage. However, if he told her, [that the condition applied]: "all the days of my life", or "all the days of ploni's [a hypothetical third person's] life", or "for fifty years", behold - this is a [valid] divorce. There are those who hold that even if he expands [the duration of the conditions] beyond the length of a persons life, because the time is [explicitly enumerated and] decided this is a [valid] divorce.

רמא הל מ"ע אלש יכלת תיבל ךיבא דע ןמז ולפ נ י פ"עא טגהש רשכ יאנתהו יק םי יא ן םושל םדא לדתשהל טגב יש ןתנ ןני ג דשלםאםש ןי יי ינה רכטה "א ל ןז עךב יל כתאשמעה מ יאנתב הז יכ א"א דומעל לע השפנ תכלמ תיבל היבא ו אצמנ טג לטב נבו הי םירזממ םאו שרגמה אוה םתואמ יפוכש ן : איצוהל אלו הצר שרגל אלא יאנתב הז יפוכ ן ותוא שרגל אלב יאנת הז אתאבשג וו ןיו ז ינבאאשג צ ל אצה

[If] He said to her -[I will give you a divorce] "on condition that you do not go to your father's house until a certain time" - eve though the divorce is Kosher [valid] and the condition in full force - a person should not endeavor to facilitate a divorce given with this condition, this is because it is impossible to stand over her [to observe her at all times, to prevent her] to prevent her from going to her father's house. The divorce will then be nullified, her children will become mamzeirim [those conceived through illicit relationships]. If the divorcer [husband] is one of those whom we force to give a bill of divorce, and if the divorce only agreed to give the divorce with this condition, he is forced to give the divorce without this condition.

According to the above ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha-Ezer 143:20-21) such a condition should not be made because of the potential danger, should the woman remarry and fail in fulfillment of the condition.

The Mishna that begins at the bottom of daf 15a teaches:

Likewise, one may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature.

But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.

Summary

The Mishna states that a Lehi (side post) can be made of anything – even a live animal.

As an aside, the Mishna continues by discussing the status of an animal that is used as a grave marker, or when a man chooses to divorce his wife by writing the get on a live animal, which works according to the Hakhamim, but does not according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

The Gemara explains that the disagreement between the Hakhamim and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili stems from different ways of understanding the passage in the Torah (Devarim 24:1) that teaches the laws of divorce.

The Hakhamim interpret the passage to mean that the divorce must offer total separation. This teaches that if conditions are set down that make the permanence of the divorce questionable, then we do not have a Sefer Keritut, and the divorce is invalid.

This is only true if the conditions of the divorce are such that, even after separation, the wife is still obligated to her husband in some way.

If, however, the condition is long-term (e.g. that the divorce is contingent on the woman never again stepping foot in her father’s house) but can be kept, according to many opinions the divorce is valid, but the woman must be careful to fulfill the condition, lest the divorce become invalid retroactively.

According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruk (Even Ha-Ezer 143:20-21) such a condition should not be made because of the potential danger, should the woman remarry and fail in fulfillment of the condition.

What to Use as a Lechi

The Mishna says that a lechi can be made from anything, even something live, but Rabbi Meir says something live cannot be used. Anything used to cover a grave is impure, even if it is live, while Rabbi Meir says that something live isn’t impure. One can write a get – divorce contract on

7 anything, even live, while Rabbi Yossi HaGelili says that it may not be written on something live. (15a – 15b)

Live Creatures

The Gemora cites a braisa in which Rabbi Meir says that anything live cannot be used as a wall of a sukkah, as a lechi, as a wall around a water pit, nor as a cover of grave. Rabbi Yossi HaGelili adds that it may not be used to write a get on. (15b)

What to Write a Get on

The Gemora cites a braisa in which Rabbi Yossi HaGelili explains his source for invalidating something live for a get. The verse says that the husband will write for his wife Sefer kerisus – a book of separation. From the word sefer we would think that he must write it on the material used for writing a sefer Torah, i.e., parchment.

The verse therefore prefaces this with the more general phrase v’kasav la – and he will write for her, including other materials as well. The word sefer therefore teaches us that the material must be like parchment, i.e., inanimate and not food. The Sages differ with this explanation, since the verse does not say besefer – in a book, but sefer, which means a document which tells a sipur – story of their separation. They therefore say that the verse which says v’kasav lah teaches that she may only be divorced in writing, since we may have thought that divorce can be done in the same methods as marriage, as they are mentioned in the same verse.

Rabbi Yossi HaGelili says that we learn this from the phrase Sefer kerisus, which teaches that only a sefer (written document) can separate them. The Sages say that this phrase teaches that the document must be a final separation, leaving no attachment to her husband.

The Gemora illustrates this requirement with a braisa which says that a divorce is valid if the husband makes it conditional on the wife not going to her father’s house for 30 days, but not if the condition is that she never visit her father’s house, as that is residual attachment the husband has to his wife.

Rabbi Yossi HaGelili learns this from the fact that the verse uses the word kerisus and not kares, while the Sages say that difference is immaterial and therefore cannot teach us this requirement.

Tosafos

תופסות ה"ד נברו ן יאה בתכו הל יאמ ידבע (Tosfos points out that they expound other laws from here.) עא ' ' ג ךירטציאד שרדמל בתכו הל המשל (a)

8 Implied question: They need it to expound "v'Chasav Lah" - Lishmah (it must be written with intent to divorce this woman)! רת י ו בתכ הל תכ י ב י (b) Answer: It is written "v'Chasav Lah" twice. (We ask what they expound from the other.) אהו נישרדד ן שרגמהב ג( יטי ן ד ' זפ . ) בתכו הל אלו הל התרבחלו (c) Implied question: We expound in Gitin (87a a third Drashah -) "v'Chasav Lah", and not for her and her colleague (one may not write one Get to divorce two women)! םתה שירד הלמ בתכוד אכהד (d) Answer: There, we expound from "Lah" of "v'Chasav [Lah]" here. (Here we expound from "v'Chasav".)

תופסות ה"ד יברו י יסו ילילגה תרכמ תותירכ (Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Gitin.) השק 'רל ' י יטיגבד ן שירב שרגמה 'ד( ):גפ רמאק לע ןנבר יברד רזעלא ןב הירזע תרכד תותירכ תותירכ תרכד הירזע ןב רזעלא יברד ןנבר לע רמאק ):גפ 'ד( שרגמה שירב ן יטיגבד י ' 'רל השק אל ישרד יברו י יסו ילילגה אוה ללכב והנה ןנבר (a) Question (Ri): In Gitin (83b) it says about Rabanan of R. Elazar ben Azaryah that they do not expound "Kares-Kerisus" (the fact that the Torah wrote the plural), and R. Yosi HaGelili is among those Rabanan! 'יו ל' םתהד רמאק אלד ישרד איההל השרד אלו יעב רמימל אלד ישרד היל ללכ (b) Answer: There, it says that they do not expound it for that Drashah. It does not mean that they do not expound it at all.

RAMBAM: Hil Gerushin 4:3

A woman may be divorced only by means of a bill of divorce, not through the transfer of money or by any other means

Even Haezer 124:20

A bill of divorce that contains a condition that binds the woman to her husband indefinitely is not valid. One should refrain from attaching a condition that is limited in time if it difficult for her to fulfill it, as it is likely that this will cause the bill of divorce to be invalidated retroactively, which would lead to extreme halakhic difficulties (Shulĥan Arukh, Even HaEzer 143:20–21).

Gittin [bills of divorce] are written on objects which can be falsified [as long as] it is given with those who witness its delivery. For example, he writes it on paper which has been previously erased, and on animal hide, and on ceramic, and on leaves, and on the hand of a slave, and on the horn of a cow -- and he delivers to her the slave or the cow or other objects in the presence of witnesses. But he should not cut off the slave's hand or the cow's horn and give it to her.

And if he wrote it [on the hand or horn] and cut it off [to deliver] to her, it is not a valid bill of divorce, because it is a requirement that the object is not cut between the time of writing and the time of giving it. "Rem"a:" it can be written on any object which is separated from the ground, and there are those who say, only on an object which will endure. But if he wrote it on the leaf of an onion or vegetables or similar items, it is invalid (Ran, Chapter 2).

The optimal way is to write it on parchment [from animal hide] which is prepared [in the same manner as] a Sefer Torah [Torah Scroll], Tefillin [Phylacteries], and Mezuzot [Doorway Scrolls] -- however it is not required that [the parchment] be processed specifically with the intent for use for a Get.

However, [not using this type of parchment] does not prevent the Get's [validity], even if it is written on the type of paper called "paper" [i.e. paper from wood pulp], [it can be written with] any type of writing, and is kosher [valid].

Steinzaltz (OBM) adds:

Divorce through Words, not through Money

The Gemora states that a woman can only be divorced through writing, not by the husband giving his wife money and stating that the money should effect the divorce.

The Torah states in the Tochachah, the rebuke that Moshe delivered to the Jewish People, that the Jewish People will be sold to Egypt and there will be no willing buyers. Hashem is forewarning

11 the Jewish People that he will return them ‘to their roots,’ i.e. Egypt, indicating that He wishes to divorce Himself from them, but there will be no one interested in purchasing the Jewish People.

This is because a divorce cannot be effected through money. Only Hashem’s word can distance us from Him, and even then the prophet declares that Hashem never delivered a bill of divorce to the Jewish People. This idea demonstrates the great love that Hashem has for His Chosen Nation.

David Stern writes:1

The origins of midrash lie in biblical tradition itself where many biblical passages self-consciously look back upon earlier passages and, in one way or another, reinterpret their meaning.

The book of Chronicles, for example, consciously recasts the history of the earlier books of Samuel and Kings, adding some episodes and omitting others, and generally spinning the earlier narrative in the course of retelling it in a politically tendentious mis-direction amenable to its author.

Elsewhere, many "later" verses in the Bible recycle allusions and imagery from "earlier" biblical texts in order to apply them to new contexts and situations.

The laws of marital divorce become the ·imagery to describe God's punishment of the people of Israel (cf.Deut. 2. and Jer. 3.1); the exodus from Egypt (Exod. ch l-15), the paradigm for all future redemptions (see, for example, Isa. 43.16-20; 51.9-11; Ezek. ch 20)

Tracy Abrams writes:2 In her thesis regarding Divorce and Exile in Aggada, specifically looking at Gittin as a metaphor for the divine and human interaction.

1 file:///Users/ungarsargon/Desktop/Stern%20-%20Midrash%20and%20Midrashic%20Interpretation.pdf

2 file:///Users/julian/iCloud%20Drive%20(Archive)/Desktop/ubc_2005-0151.pdf University of British Columbia, 2005

Using the Gemora in Gittin 90b discusses divorce in the context of the divine/human relationship:

As Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears over him, as it is stated:

And this further ye do: ye cover the altar of the LORD with 13 גי ,תאֹזְו תיִנֵשׁ וּשֲׂﬠַתּ -- תוֹסַּכּ הָﬠְמִדּ הָﬠְמִדּ תוֹסַּכּ tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He תֶא - חַבְּזִמ ,הָוהְי יִכְבּ ;הָקָנֲאַו ןיֵאֵמ ,דוֹע ,דוֹע ןיֵאֵמ ;הָקָנֲאַו יִכְבּ ,הָוהְי חַבְּזִמ

13 regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with תוֹנְפּ לֶא - ,הָחְנִמַּה תַחַקָלְו ,ןוֹצָר ,ןוֹצָר תַחַקָלְו ,הָחְנִמַּה .good will at your hand .םֶכְדֶיִּמ

Yet ye say: 'Wherefore?' Because the LORD hath been 14 די ,םֶתְּרַמֲאַו לַﬠ - :הָמ לַﬠ יִכּ - הָוהְי הָוהְי witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom דיִﬠֵה ְניֵבּ ןיֵבוּ תֶשֵׁא ,יֶרוּעְנ רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ,יֶרוּעְנ תֶשֵׁא ןיֵבוּ ְניֵבּ דיִﬠֵה ,thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion הָתַּא הָתְּדַגָבּ ,הָּבּ איִהְו ,ְתְּרֶבֲח ֵאְו תֶשׁ תֶשׁ and the wife of thy covenant ְבּ .ֶתיִר

Malachi 2:13–14)

Clearly one should not divorce the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife, as one who does so is hated by God for divorcing the woman to whom he was bound in companionship and covenant.

Steinzaltz (OBM) adds:

..it appears as if the wife of one’s youth (the first partnership) one should not divorce..for it is hateful to the Almighty he who divorces the wife of his youth who was connected (bonded) to him in communion and covenant.

Judith Baskin writes:3

Both in the Hebrew Bible and throughout later Jewish literature, the relationship between a man and a woman is often understood metaphorically as signifying the intimate bonds between God and human beings.

In some midrashic passages, (especially Song of Songs Rabba) the male Knesset Israel, the community of Israel, is constructed as the female beloved; in the relationship between God, who is characterized as masculine, and the male community of Israel, characterized as feminine, there is no place for woman. At best, women direct their yearnings towards their husbands, and share by reflected glory in their husband's communion with the divine.

As Jacob Neusner has observed about the feminization of Israel in Song of Songs Rabbah, as a wife must submit faithfully to her husband and follow him wherever he leads with perfect faith in his wisdom and judgement, so the male community of Israel must direct full devotion and faith to God and wait patiently for God's redemption. 'Implicit in this representation of the right

3 BOLSTERS TO THEIR HUSBANDS: WOMEN AS WIVES IN RABBINIC LITERATURE, European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe , Autumn 2004,

14 relationship, of course, is the promise that the feminine Israel will evoke from the masculine God the response of commitment and intervention: God will intervene to save Israel, when Israel makes herself into the perfect wife of God.

However, if the male Jew is to cleave fully to God as a wife must cleave to her husband, then what of his relationship to his actual wife? Total devotion to the divine could have the effect of displacing a wife in her husband's affections and devaluing the human marital relationship. If love between husband and wife served simply as a metaphor of the infinitely more important relationship between God and Knesset Israel then at some level the human connection must always be secondary, just as women were subordinate and disadvantaged in other aspects of daily and marital life. (see also the RAMAK, Tomer Devorah on ch 9:4 “Malchus”)

בוּ ִ ז ְ ַ מ נּ ִ םי וּלֵּא ִכְשַּׁה הָני הָקֵבְדּ קוּ רוּשְׁ הָ וֹמִּﬠ הָּניֵאְו תַחַנַּמ וֹתוֹא , יֵדְכּ אֹלֶּשׁ הֶיְהִי בָזֱﬠֶנ דָרְפִנְו , אָלֶּא םָלוֹעְל םָדָא םֵלָשׁ רָכָז נוּ ְ בֵ ק הָ , יֵרֲהַו ִכְשׁ ני הָ זִמ דְּ וַּ ֶ תֶג וֹל , יִרָצ םָדָא ִל זּ רֵהָזִּ אֹלֶּשׁ רָפִּת דֵ ִכְשׁ ני הָ וּנֶּמִּמ וֹתוֹיְהִבּ אֵצוֹי דַּל ֶרֶ , ְו הֶיְהִי זיִרָז רַכְּשִׂנְו לֵלַּפְּתִהְל תַלִּפְתּ ֶרֶדַּה זֹחֱאֶלְו הָרוֹתַּבּ , הָבִּסְבֶּשׁ וֹז ִכְשׁ ני הָ ִהֶשׁ אי ִמְשׁ תַרי ֶרֶדַּה , מוֹע ֶ תֶ ד וֹל ִמָת דיִָ וֹתוֹיְהִבּ ריִהָז ןִמ אְטֵחַה קֵסוֹעְו הָרוֹתַּבּ . ןֵכְו תוֹיְהִבּ וֹתְּשִׁא הָדִּנ ִכְשׁ ני הָ מוֹע ֶ תֶ ד וֹל רֵמוֹשֶּׁשְׁכּ דִּנַּה הָ רָכּ יוּאָ . רַחַא ָכּ ֵלְבּ לי הָּתָרֳהָט וֹא ֵלְבּ לי תָבַּשׁ וֹא וֹאֹבְבּ ןִמ ֶרֶדַּה , לָכּ דָחֶא ןֶהֵמ ןַמְז ִﬠְבּ תַלי ְצִמ ו הָ אוּה . שׁוּ ְ ִכ י נ ָ ה ִמָתּ די תַחַתְּפִנ הָלְﬠַמְל לֵבַּקְל תוֹמָשְׁנ תוֹשׁוֹדְק , םַגּ וֹתְּשִׁא יוּאָר דֹקְפִל ֹא הָּ ת בוּ ָ ז ֶ ה ִכְשׁ ני הָ ִמָת די וֹמִּﬠ , ֵכּ ן רֵפּ שֵׁ רַהֹזַּבּ תַשָׁרָפְבּ תיִשׁאֵרְבּ ) ףַדּ מ"ט .(. ִקְפַּה הָדי וֹתְּשִׁאְל יִרָצ ְהִתֶּשׁ י הֶ אָקְוַדּ ןַמְזִבּ ִכְשַּׁהֶשׁ ני הָ יְִֶַ הָּמוֹקְמִבּ , וּנְיַהְדּ ִהֶשְׁכּ אי ֵבּ ןי ֵתְּשׁ י תוֹעוֹרְז . נְמָא םָ ןַמְזִבּ תַרָצ רוּבִּצַּה ֵאֶשּׁ ןי ְשַּׁה ִכ הָני ֵבּ ןיֵ . ֵתְּשׁ י תוֹעוֹרְז , רוּסָא . ןֵכְו רֵפּ וּשְׁ ִנוּקִּתַּבּ םי רָפּ תַשָׁ תיִשׁאֵרְבּ ) וּקִּתּ ן ס"ט(

And at these times, the Divine Presence is clinging and bound to him and It does not leave him, so that he not be abandoned and separated. Rather the man is always complete, male and female. And behold [since] the Divine Presence is coupled with him when he goes out on the way, a man must be careful that It not separate from him. And he [should] be alacritous and rewarded to pray the prayer of the way and to hold on to Torah. As from this reason, the Divine Presence - which is Protection of the way - always stands for him; in that he is being careful from sin and occupied with Torah. And so [too,] when his wife is a menstruant, the Divine Present stands upon him - when he observes [the laws of] the menstruant as is fitting. Afterwards on the night of her purity, on the Shabbat night or on his coming back from the way - each one of them is a time of commanded intercourse. And the Divine Presence above opens to accept holy souls; so is his wife fitting to visit her. And with this, the Divine Presence is always with him. So is it explained in the Zohar in Parshat Bereishit (p. 49a). The visiting of his wife must be specifically at the time that the Divine Presence is between the two Forearms (Kindness and Severity). However at a time that the Divine Presence is not between the two Forearms, it is forbidden. And so is it explained in the Tikkunim, Parshat Bereishit (Tikkun 69).

15 Jeffrey Spitser writes:4

In order to explain the failure of the covenant between God and Israel, the rabbis sought the closest analogue: the occasional failure of the human covenant between husband and wife.

Love on the Rocks

When the covenant seems to work, the rabbis imagined the covenant as a love story. Most notably, the rabbis transformed the love poetry of the biblical book of Song of Songs into the love story of God and Israel. Yet, if Song of Songs Rabbah and the Targum (Aramaic interpretive translation) of Song of Songs preserve the love story, then a peculiar midrashic collection known as Midrash Song of Songs (edited by Eliezer Greenhut) presents the story of “love on the rocks.” The one known manuscript of this midrash was apparently copied (or maybe even written) during the Crusades and was then lost during the Holocaust.

O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the covert 14 די נוֹי תָ יִ גַחְבּ וְ ֵ י ,עַלֶסַּה רֶתֵסְבּ ,הָגֵרְדַמַּה ,הָגֵרְדַמַּה רֶתֵסְבּ of the cliff, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy יִניִאְרַה תֶא - יַאְרַמ ,ִ יִנִﬠיִמְשַׁה תֶא - voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is ק לוֹ ֵ : יִכּ - לוֹק ֵ רָﬠ ,בֵ מוּ רַ אְ ֵ י י ֵ אְ רַ מוּ ,בֵ רָﬠ ֵ לוֹק .comely .הֶואָנ }ס{ Cant. 2:14

“‘Show me your countenance’ This is like a man who had an ugly wife whose name was Hannah. She honored her husband greatly, but he was sad, because although she had a good name and beautiful deeds, her face was ugly. A dream maker came and asked why he was distressed, and he explained why. ‘Do you want her to be beautiful?’ ‘Yes,’ came the reply. In the morning, she became beautiful. She saw herself and she began to lord herself over her husband.

In the night, the dream maker came again and asked what he wanted. ‘Please make Hannah ugly again.’ ‘For your voice is pleasant and your face becoming’ ( Song of Songs 2:14 ). The Holy Blessed One said to Israel, ‘When is your voice pleasant to me? When you are pressed down by persecution…'” (Midrash Song of Songs Greenhut 2:14).

The flip side of the biblical and rabbinic suspicion of wealth and good times:

Beware lest thou forget the LORD thy God, in not 11 אי רֶמָשִּׁה ,ְל ןֶפּ - חַכְּשִׁתּ תֶא - הָוהְי הָוהְי keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His ,יֶהֱא יִתְּלִבְל רֹמְשׁ וְצִמ � ויָת ויָטָפְּשִׁמוּ ויָטָפְּשִׁמוּ ויָת statutes, which I command thee this day; ,ויָתֹקֻּחְו רֶשֲׁא יִכֹנָא ְוַּצְמ .םוֹיַּה ְוַּצְמ יִכֹנָא רֶשֲׁא ,ויָתֹקֻּחְו Deut 8:11

4 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/israel-as-estranged-wives-and-widows/

16 (“You will eat and be satisfied. Be careful lest your hearts stray,” [ Deuteronomy 11:16 , and cf. Deuteronomy 8:11-20 ]) is the belief that bad times and, in particular, suffering and persecution somehow foster the kind of relationship that God wants from Israel. Suffering, according to this view, leads to Israel’s devotion and even to a perverse beauty.

Israel as Loyal Widow

Although the previous passage does not reveal any bitterness or irony, that is not the case with other uses of the husband-wife metaphor. The book of Lamentations begins “How has the city, so full of people, become k-almanah, like a widow!” For the rabbis, the interpretive crux becomes the single letter-word, k-almanah, like-a widow. How is Israel like a widow without actually being one?

“‘How has the city, so full of people, become like a widow!’…R. Hama bar Ukba and the rabbis [disagreed]. R. Hama bar Ukba said: She is like a widow who chose continued support (in the house of her deceased husband) rather than her ketubah (her marriage settlement which would have required her to find a new husband)…”

R. Hama’s approach needs a little explanation. According to the Talmud (Ketubot 52b), a woman has two choices upon the death of her husband. The common choice is that she receives the ketubah settlement that would support her for a year or so until she could be remarried. Instead, Israel is seen as a widow who chooses to stay in the house of her deceased husband rather than go somewhere else.

Although Lamentations mourns the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, R. Hama’s analogy raises the specter of what, in modern times, would be seen as a metaphor for the death of God. Israel’s continued faithfulness to the land and religion of Israel, is seen as the widow who maintains a posthumous fidelity towards her husband. Yet, Israel’s God/Husband is not really dead, so Israel is only like a widow and not one in reality.

God as Abusive Husband

The rabbis’ parable, however, takes the understanding of “like a widow” and not really a widow in a totally different direction.

“The rabbis said: It is like a king who was angry with his matron and wrote out her divorce document, but then got up and snatched it from her. Whenever she wished to remarry, he said to her, ‘Where is your divorce document?’ And whenever she demanded monetary support, he said to her, ‘But have I not divorced you?'”

“Similarly, whenever Israel wished to worship idols, the Holy Blessed One said to them, ‘Where is your mother’s divorce document?’ (Isaiah 50:1); and whenever they wished that God should perform miracles for them as in the past, the Holy Blessed One, said to them, ‘Have I not already divorced you?’ That is what is written, ‘I sent her away and I gave her divorce document’ (Jeremiah 3:8)” (Lamentations Rabbah 1:1.3).

For the rabbis in this midrash, God’s behavior is that of a wicked husband who takes advantage of the inequity in Jewish law which puts the power of divorce exclusively in the hands of the man. Although the woman in this parable is divorced and not widowed, as in the biblical verse, the woman is only “like a widow” in that she lacks the support of a husband and yet, she lacks the freedom of the widow to remarry. Israel suffers, and lacks the support of God who does not even allow Israel the freedom to depart and join with other gods.

Together Forever

A final example of the rabbinic response to suffering, however, contrasts sharply with this last vision of a powerless Israel.

R. Joshua of Sikhnin reports this parable of R. Levi:

“R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi:

I am the man that hath seen affliction by the 1 נֲא יִ רֶבֶגַּה הָאָר נֳﬠ ,יִ טֶבֵשְׁבּ .וֹתָרְבֶﬠ טֶבֵשְׁבּ ,יִ נֳﬠ rod of His wrath. Lam 3:1

“I am the one who has learned from suffering. Have I benefited from what you thought fit?!”

“It is like a king who got angry at his wife and forced her out of the palace. She went and pushed her face up behind one of the pillars, [staying in the palace, but hiding]. The king saw her as he was walking by and said ‘Such impudence!’ She responded, ‘My lord king, this is the right and appropriate thing for me, since no other woman besides me has accepted you.’ He retorted, ‘Only because I disqualified all other women [from marrying me] for your sake.’ She said to him,

18 ‘If that is the case, why did you go to that house on that street if not to meet with a woman who ended up rejecting you?'”

“Similarly, the Holy Blessed One said to Israel, ‘Such impudence!’ But Israel said, ‘Master of the Universe, it is right and proper for us since no other nation besides us has accepted the Torah .’ God retorted, ‘Only because I disqualified all other nations for your sake.’ Israel said, ‘If that is the case, why did you offer the Torah to all of the nations, only to have them reject it!'”

Lamentations Rabbah 3:1

Although the Temple was destroyed, Israel remains attached to God. But she is far from powerless. Like the woman of the parable, ejected from her home, Israel can turn to God and say, “You may be angry with us, but we’re all You’ve got!” This translation follows the reading of R. Samuel ben Isaac Jaffe, the sixteenth century author of the commentary Yefeh Anaf. Jaffe comments:

“‘I am the man’ who has suffered as a result of having accepted Your Torah. Instead of You doing good for me, You have done me evil; had I not accepted Your Torah, then I would be free and I would not have suffered for having not fulfilled it.”

Rabbi Jaffe affirms the theology of the covenant, but nevertheless bemoans the consequences. Other rabbinic texts present God in ways that are even more transgressive of the basic terms of the covenant, including describing God as a wife-batterer.

Later theologians developed different kinds of theologies to explain suffering in this world; in comparison to modern theological responses, the rabbinic repertoire seems rather limited.

Nevertheless, working from within the covenantal theology that suffering is punishment for violation of the Torah’s norms, the rabbis found effective ways to subvert and rework the metaphor of covenant to express their own theological discomfort, and more importantly, their own voices of protest to the suffering which they saw as a violation of a divine covenant.