Daf Ditty Eruvin 15:Divorce as Paradigm

1
 ‫ וְּמַטֵמּא ִמשּׁוּם גּוֵֹלל‬.‫ ְוַרִבּי ֵמִאיר אוֵֹסר‬,‫ַמְת ִני׳ ַבֹּכּל עוִֹשׂין ְלָחַי ִין ֲאִפילּוּ ְבָּדָבר ֶשֵׁיּשׁ בּוֹ רוַּח ַח ִיּים‬,

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.

‫ ְוַרִבּי יוֵֹסי ַהְגִּליִלי פּוֵֹסל‬,‫ ְוכוְֹתִבין ָﬠָליו ִגּיֵטּי ָנִשׁים‬.‫ ְוַרִבּי ֵמִאיר ְמַטֵהר‬.

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.

‫ ל ֹא ַפִּסּין‬,‫ ָכּל ָדָּבר ֶשֵׁיּשׁ בּוֹ רוַּח ַח ִיּים ֵאין עוִֹשׂין אוֹתוֹ ל ֹא דּוֶֹפן ְלסוָּכּה ְול ֹא ֶלִחי ְלָמבוֹי‬:‫ ַרִבּי ֵמִאיר אוֵֹמר‬,‫ְגָּמ׳ ַתּ ְנָיא‬
‫ ַאף ֵאין כּוְֹתִבין ָﬠָליו ִגּיֵטּי ָנִשׁים‬:‫ ִמשּׁוּם ַרִבּי יוֵֹסי ַהְגִּליִלי ָאְמרוּ‬.‫ְלֵביָראוֹת ְול ֹא גּוֵֹלל ְלֶקֶבר‬.

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.

‫ ִמׇכּל‬,‫ ִמַנּ ִיין ְלַרבּוֹת ָכּל ָדָּבר? ַתְּלמוּד לוַֹמר ״ ְוָכַתב ָלהּ״‬.‫ ֵאין ִלי ֶאָלּא ֵסֶפר‬,‫ ״ֵסֶפר״‬:‫ ְדַּת ְנָיא‬,‫ַמאי ַטְﬠָמא ְדַּרִבּי יוֵֹסי ַהְגִּליִלי‬
‫ ַאף ָכּל ָדָּבר ֶשֵׁאין בּוֹ רוַּח‬,‫ ָמה ֵסֶפר ָדָּבר ֶשֵׁאין בּוֹ רוַּח ַח ִיּים ְוֵאינוֹ אוֶֹכל‬:q‫ ִאם ֵכּן ָמה ַתְּלמוּד לוַֹמר ״ֵסֶפר״? לוַֹמר ָל‬.‫ָמקוֹם‬
‫ַח ִיּים ְוֵאינוֹ אוֶֹכל‬.

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:

‫ֵחן‬-‫ל ֹא ִתְמָצא‬-‫ וְּבָﬠָלהּ; ְוָהָיה ִאם‬,‫ ִיַקּח ִאישׁ ִאָשּׁה‬-‫א ִכּי‬ 1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth
‫ ְוָכַתב ָלהּ ֵסֶפר ְכּ ִריֻתת‬--‫ָמָצא ָבהּ ֶﬠ ְרַות ָדָּבר‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ְבֵּﬠיָניו‬ her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no
.‫ ְוִשְׁלָּחהּ ִמֵבּיתוֹ‬,‫ְוָנַתן ְבָּיָדהּ‬ favour in his eyes, because he hath found
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.

‫ ִלְסִפירוּת ְדָּב ִרים ְבָּﬠְלָמא הוּא ַדֲּאָתא‬,‫ ְוַרָבַּנן? ִמי ְכִּתיב ״ְבֵּסֶפר״? ״ֵסֶפר״ ְכִּתיב‬.

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.

:‫ ָאֵמיָנא‬q‫ ָסְלָקא ַדְּﬠָתּ‬.‫ ְוֵאיָנהּ ִמְתָגֶּרֶשׁת ְבֶּכֶסף‬,‫ ִבְּכִתיָבה ִמְתָגֶּרֶשׁת‬:‫ ַהאי ״ ְוָכַתב ָלהּ״ ַמאי ָדּ ְרִשׁי ֵבּיהּ? ָההוּא ִמְבֵּﬠי ֵליהּ‬,‫ְוַרָבַּנן‬
‫ ָקא ַמְשַׁמע ַלן‬.‫ ַאף ְיִציָאה ְבֶּכֶסף‬,‫הוִֹאיל ְוִאיַתַּקּשׁ ְיִציָאה ַלֲהָוָיה — ָמה ֲהָוָיה ְבֶּכֶסף‬.

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.

‫ ְוֵאין ָדָּבר ַאֵחר כּוֹ ְרָתהּ‬,‫ ֵסֶפר כּוֹ ְרָתהּ‬:‫ ַהאי ְסָבָרא ְמָנא ֵליהּ? ָנְפָקא ֵליהּ ִמ״ֵסֶּפר ְכּ ִריתוּת״‬,‫ ְוַרִבּי יוֵֹסי ַהְגִּליִלי‬.

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.

‫ ַﬠל ְמָנת‬,‫ ַﬠל ְמָנת ֶשׁלּ ֹא ִתְּשִׁתּי ַי ִין‬q‫ ֲהֵרי ֶזה ִגּיֵטּ‬:‫ ְלִכְדַת ְנָיא‬.‫ ַהאי ״ֵסֶפר ְכּ ִריתוּת״ ִמיְבֵּﬠי ֵליהּ ְלָדָבר ַהכּוֵֹרת ֵבּינוֹ ְלֵביָנהּ‬,‫ְוַרָבַּנן‬
‫ ָכּל ְשׁ„ִשׁים יוֹם — ֲהֵרי ֶזה ְכּ ִריתוּת‬.‫ ְלעוָֹלם — ֵאין ֶזה ְכּ ִריתוּת‬q‫ֶשׁלּ ֹא ֵתְּלִכי ְלֵבית ָאִבי‬.

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.

‫ ָנְפָקא ֵליהּ ִמ״ָכֵּרת״ ״ְכּ ִריתוּת״‬,‫ ְוַרִבּי יוֵֹסי ַהְגִּליִלי‬.

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.

‫ ְוַרָבַּנן ״ָכֵּרת״ ״ְכּ ִריתוּת״ ָלא ָדּ ְרִשׁי‬.

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

‫צריך שלא יתנה עליה תנאי שעומדת בו כל ימיה כגון ע"מ שלא תאכלי בשר או שלא תשתי יין לעולם או כל ימי חייכי‬
‫שאם התנה כך אין זה כריתות אבל אם אמר לה כל ימי חיי או כל ימי חיי פלוני או עד חמשים שנה ה"ז גט ויש מי‬
‫שכתב שאפי' הרחיב הזמן יותר מכדי חיי האדם כיון שהוא דבר פסוק הרי זה גט‬:

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.

‫אמר לה ע"מ שלא תלכי לבית אביך עד זמן פלוני אע"פ שהגט כשר והתנאי קיים אין לשום אדם להשתדל בגט שינתן‬
‫בתנאי זה כי א"א לעמוד על נפשה מלכת לבית אביה ונמצא גט בטל ובניה ממזרים ואם המגרש הוא מאותם שכופין‬
‫להוציא ולא רצה לגרש אלא בתנאי זה כופין אותו לגרש בלא תנאי זה‬:

[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:

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.

6
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.

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. 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

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה ור בנן ה אי וכ ת ב ל ה מ אי ע ב די‬

(Tosfos points out that they expound other laws from here.)
‫אע''ג דאיצטריך למדרש וכתב לה לשמה‬
(a)

8
 Implied question: They need it to expound "v'Chasav Lah" - Lishmah (it must be written
with intent to divorce this woman)!
‫תרי וכתב לה כתיבי‬
(b)
Answer: It is written "v'Chasav Lah" twice. (We ask what they expound from the other.)
‫( וכתב לה ולא לה ולחברתה‬.‫והא דדרשינן בהמגרש )גיטין ד' פז‬
(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)!
‫התם דריש מלה דוכתב דהכא‬
(d)
Answer: There, we expound from "Lah" of "v'Chasav [Lah]" here. (Here we expound from
"v'Chasav".)

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה ור בי י וסי הגלילי מ כר ת כרית ות‬

(Tosfos resolves this with the Gemara in Gitin.)
‫( קאמר על רבנן דרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דכרת כריתות‬:‫קשה לר''י דבגיטין בריש המגרש )ד' פג‬
‫לא דרשי ורבי יוסי הגלילי הוא בכלל הנהו רבנן‬
(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!
‫וי''ל דהתם קאמר דלא דרשי לההיא דרשה ולא בעי למימר דלא דרשי ליה כלל‬
(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

9
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.

10
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

12
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:

‫ַכּסּוֹת ִדְּמָﬠה‬--‫ ֵשׁ ִנית ַתֲּﬠשׂוּ‬,‫יג ְוז ֹאת‬ 13 And this further ye do: ye cover the altar of the LORD with
,‫ ְבִּכי ַוֲאָנָקה; ֵמֵאין עוֹד‬,‫ִמְזַבּח ְיהָוה‬-‫ֶאת‬ tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He

13
 ,‫ְוָלַקַחת ָרצוֹן‬ ,‫ַהִמּ ְנָחה‬-‫ֶאל‬ ‫ְפּנוֹת‬ regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with
.‫ִמֶיְּדֶכם‬ good will at your hand.

‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ ַﬠל ִכּי‬:‫ָמה‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫יד ַוֲאַמ ְרֶתּם‬ 14 Yet ye say: 'Wherefore?' Because the LORD hath been
‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,§‫ֵהִﬠיד ֵבּי ְנ§ וֵּבין ֵאֶשׁת ְנעוֶּרי‬ witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom
‫ ְוֵאֶשׁת‬,§‫ ְוִהיא ֲחֶב ְרְתּ‬,‫ַאָתּה ָבַּגְדָתּה ָבּהּ‬ thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion,
.§‫ְבּ ִריֶת‬ and the wife of thy covenant

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”)

‫ﬠז ָב‬ ֱ ֶ‫הי ֶה נ‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁלּ ֹא י‬ ֶ ‫כֵּדי‬ ְ , ‫חת אוֹתוֹ‬ ַ ַ‫מנּ‬ ַ ‫אינָהּ‬ ֵ ְ ‫ﬠמּוֹ ו‬ ִ ‫קשׁוָּרה‬ ְ ‫קה וּ‬ ָ ‫ב‬ ֵ ‫כינָה ְדּ‬ ִ ‫שּׁ‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫אלּ וּ‬ ֵ ‫מנִּים‬ ַ ְ ‫בז‬ ִ ‫וּ‬
‫הר‬ֵ ָ ‫לזּ‬
ִ ‫אָדם‬ ָ I‫צִרי‬ ָ , ‫מז ְַדּוּ ֶגֶת לוֹ‬ ִ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫הֵרי‬ ֲ ַ ‫ו‬, ‫בה‬ ָ ‫ק‬ ֵ ְ‫כר וּנ‬ ָ ָ ‫לם ז‬ ֵ ‫שׁ‬ ָ ‫אָדם‬ ָ ‫לם‬ ָ ‫לעוֹ‬ ְ ‫לּא‬ ָ ‫א‬ ֶ , ‫פָרד‬ ְ ִ‫ו ְנ‬
‫לּת‬ַ ‫פ‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ְ ‫לּל‬ ֵ ‫פּ‬ ַ ‫ת‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ִ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫כּר‬ ַ ‫שׂ‬ ְ ִ‫הי ֶה ז ִָריז ו ְנ‬ ְ ִ ‫ו ְי‬, I‫לֶדֶּר‬ ַ ‫צא‬ ֵ ‫היוֹתוֹ יוֹ‬ ְ ‫בּ‬ ִ ‫מּנּוּ‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫פֵּרד‬ ָ ‫ת‬ ִ ‫שׁלּ ֹא‬ ֶ
‫מיד‬ ִ ‫ת‬ ָ ‫מֶדת לוֹ‬ ֶ ‫עוֹ‬, I‫הֶדֶּר‬ ַ ‫מיַרת‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫היא‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫בּה זוֹ‬ ָ ‫ס‬ ִ ‫בּ‬ ְ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ , ‫בּתּוָֹרה‬ ַ ‫אח ֹז‬ ֱ ‫ל‬ ֶ ְ ‫ ו‬I‫הֶדֶּר‬ ַ
‫מֶדת לוֹ‬ ֶ ‫כינָה עוֹ‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ְ ‫שׁתּוֹ נִָדּה‬ ְ ‫א‬ ִ ‫היוֹת‬ ְ ‫בּ‬ ִ ‫כן‬ ֵ ְ ‫ו‬. ‫בּתּוָֹרה‬ ַ ‫סק‬ ֵ ‫טא ו ְעוֹ‬ ְ ‫ח‬ֵ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫מן‬ ִ ‫היר‬ ִ ָ ‫היוֹתוֹ ז‬ ְ ‫בּ‬ ִ
‫כּל‬ ָ , I‫הֶדֶּר‬ ַ ‫מן‬ ִ ‫בּב ֹאוֹ‬ ְ ‫בּת אוֹ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ַ ‫בּ לֵיל‬ ְ ‫ת הּ אוֹ‬ ָ ‫הָר‬ ֳ ‫ט‬ ָ ‫בּ לֵיל‬ ְ I‫כּ‬ ָ ‫חר‬ ַ ‫א‬ ַ . ‫כָּראוּי‬ ָ ‫הנִָּדּה‬ ַ ‫מר‬ ֵ ‫שׁ שּׁוֹ‬ ֶ ‫כּ‬ ְ
‫שׁמוֹת‬ ָ ְ‫בּל נ‬ ֵ ‫ק‬ ַ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫לה‬ ָ ‫ﬠ‬ ְ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫ל‬ְ ‫חת‬ ַ ‫תּ‬ ַ ‫פ‬ ְ ִ‫מיד נ‬ ִ ‫תּ‬ ָ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫וּ‬. ‫צו ָה הוּא‬ ְ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫ﬠילַת‬ ִ ‫בּ‬ ְ ‫מן‬ ַ ְ ‫הן ז‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫חד‬ ָ ‫א‬ ֶ
‫שׁת‬ ַ ‫פָר‬ ָ ‫בּ‬ ְ ‫הר‬ ַ ֹ ‫בּזּ‬ַ ‫פֵּרשׁ‬ ֵ ‫כּן‬ ֵ , ‫ﬠמּוֹ‬ ִ ‫מיד‬ ִ ‫ת‬ ָ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫בז ֶה‬ ָ ‫תהּ וּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫פק ֹד א‬ ְ ‫ל‬ ִ ‫שׁתּוֹ ָראוּי‬ ְ ‫א‬ ִ ‫גּם‬ ַ , ‫ק דוֹשׁוֹת‬ ְ
‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שּׁ‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ ‫מן‬ ַ ְ ‫בּז‬ִ ‫קא‬ ָ ְ ‫הי ֶה ַדּו‬ ְ ‫תּ‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ I‫צִרי‬ ָ ‫שׁתּוֹ‬ ְ ‫א‬ ִ ‫ל‬ ְ ‫קיָדה‬ ִ ‫פּ‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ַ .). ‫שׁית (ַדּף מ"ט‬ ִ ‫בֵּרא‬ ְ
‫בּין‬
ֵ ‫כינָה‬ ִ ‫שּׁ‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫אין‬ ֵ ‫שּׁ‬ ֶ ‫צּ בּוּר‬ ִ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫צַרת‬ ָ ‫מן‬ ַ ְ ‫בּז‬ ִ ‫מנָם‬ ְ ‫א‬ ָ . ‫תּי ז ְרוֹעוֹת‬ ֵ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫בּין‬ ֵ ‫היא‬ ִ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ ‫כּ‬ ְ ‫הי ְנוּ‬ ַ ‫ְדּ‬, ‫מהּ‬ ָ ‫מ קוֹ‬ ְ ‫בּ‬ ִ
)‫תּקּוּן ס"ט‬ ִ ( ‫שׁ ית‬ ִ ‫בֵּרא‬ ְ ‫שׁת‬ ַ ‫פָּר‬ ָ ‫תּקּוּנִים‬ ִ ‫בּ‬ ַ ‫פְּרשׁוּ‬ ֵ ‫כן‬ ֵ ְ ‫ו‬. ‫אסוּר‬ ָ , ‫תּי ז ְרוֹעוֹת‬ ֵ ‫שׁ‬ ְ .

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.

,‫ ְבֵּסֶתר ַהַמְּדֵרָגה‬,‫יד יוָֹנִתי ְבַּחְגֵוי ַהֶסַּלע‬ 14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the covert
-‫ ַהְשִׁמיִﬠ ִני ֶאת‬,q‫ַמ ְרַא ִי‬-‫ַה ְרִאי ִני ֶאת‬ of the cliff, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy
q‫ וַּמ ְרֵאי‬,‫ָﬠֵרב‬ q‫קוֵֹל‬-‫ִכּי‬ :q‫קוֵֹל‬ voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is
{‫ }ס‬.‫ָנאֶוה‬ comely.
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:

‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ִתְּשַׁכּח ֶאת‬-‫ ֶפּן‬,§‫יא ִהָשֶּׁמר ְל‬ 11 Beware lest thou forget the LORD thy God, in not
‫ ְלִבְלִתּי ְשֹׁמר ִמְצו�ָתיו וִּמְשָׁפָּטיו‬,§‫ֱא„ֶהי‬ keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His
statutes, which I command thee this day;
.‫ ֲאֶשׁר ָא ֹנִכי ְמַצ ְוּ§ ַהיּוֹם‬,‫ְוֻחֹקָּתיו‬
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).

17
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:

.‫ ְבֵּשֶׁבט ֶﬠְב ָרתוֹ‬,‫ֲא ִני ַהֶגֶּבר ָרָאה ֳﬠ ִני‬ 1 I am the man that hath seen affliction by the
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.

19