<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1689601962;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1606080698 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>RZS wrote on Areivim:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>>You're omitting one vital criterion. Giving a get is compared to bringing a korban *only* in those cases where it's already been determined that he is obligated to give one. It is not true in the normal case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I thought it was worth responding on Avodah, because the parallels between gitten and korbanos run much deeper than merely that once it has been determined that one is obligated to bring a get or korban, force may be applied.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Indeed there are (at least) two basic concepts found both in relation to gitten and korban where the one is constantly referred to the other: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>a) the requirement of lishma - ie that a get must be given with the intent for this particular woman. A similar requirement of lishma is required vis a vis korbanos and the parallel between the two is brought on the very first daf of Zevachim (2b). Ie the gemora understands right from the beginning that the two are intimately connected.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>b) the requirement for ratzon in a get comes from the Mishna in Aruchin (21a) which begins by quoting the requirement for the korban to be brought “l’ratzono” (quoting the posuk of Vayikra 1:3) and then provides the proviso that a person can be forced. The mishna then adds “and so is the case with gittei nashim”. This is despite the psukim in the Torah discussing gitten not using the term l’rtzono, nor the mishna or gemora anywhere deriving out of these psukim that you need the rashon of the baal. And while there may be rishonim and/or achronim that try and learn this requirement directly out of the pasukim relating to get, it is noteworthy that the mishna and gemora does not. This mishna is then the one that is quoted in the various places where forcing is discussed, eg Yevamos 106a, Kiddushin 50a, Baba Basra 48a. That is, extraordinarily, the whole idea that a get has to be given with the ratzon of the husband appears to be brought in Torah SheBaal Peh as fundamentally arising out of the connection of gitten to korbanos, and not as an independent din. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>But of course the parallels go even deeper than this. I cannot do justice to such a linkage in a post like this, but here are some of the basic connections: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Marriage is paralleled to hekdesh by means of the very term we use “kiddushin”. It is called kidushin because of the element of hekedesh in it. This again is brought right at the beginning of the gemora that discusses nature of kiddushin (Kiddushin 2b see alsoTosphos there d”h “d’assur la”). There are many other references that explore this parallel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>The linkage between marriage and hekesh it taken to its fullest conclusion in Nedarim (29a). The gemara is discussing a situation where the state of hekdesh of certain trees donated to the Temple automatically dissipates after they are cut. Seeking to refute this halakha the gemara suggests that the state of hekdesh of these trees cannot automatically disappear without a positive act (such as pidyon or me'ila). To support this position the gemara cites the case of marriage where the state of hekdesh/kiddushin cannot merely dissolve on its own without a get. In response to this the gemara distinguishes between the trees which merely have kedushas da’amim, and a woman who possesses “kedushas ha-guf”. Ie the gemora treats completely seriously the idea that married women are in a physical state of kedushas haguf. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Marriage is the one place that today, without a beis hamikdash, we apply halachos of tumah and ta'harah. The coming together of husband and wife is the one parallel we have today to coming in a state of tahara to the beis hamikdash. Again, if you understand the woman to be in some fashion in a state of kedushas ha-guf, the logic of this is clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>4.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>In contrast ,unfaithfulness in relation to marriage is not only called tumah (see Bamidbar 5:13 with reference to Sotah) but it is the archetypal form of tumah, being the source used to learn out key general principles of hekdesh related tumah and tahara such as safek tumah b'reshus harabbim tahor, b'reshus hayachid tameh</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>.</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>5.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Just as somebody who is tameh is required to be sent out of the beis hamikdash, when there is tumah within marriage there needs to be a sending out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>6.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And there are other kinds of parallels, for example two cases where toch kedei dibur does not work relate to hekdesh and marriage..<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>So it is not surprising that the end of a marriage requires a kind of korban linked concept in the form of a get.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And while I am no kabbalist my understanding is that the kabbalists go even further with these parallels.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Of course these parallels are not exact; there are aspects of get that are not identical to korban, and there are aspects of marriage that are not identical to hekdesh. But the way these concepts intertwine within the Talmud like dna strands looping constantly about one another makes it very hard, if you spend considerable time in the sea of the Talmud, not to see the resonance between the one and the other.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>The parallels suggest, and indeed this seems to be the thrust of the Torah from the pshat of the psukim relating to gitten, that the existence and nature of a get is based on the need to preserve the extreme sanctity of marriage. Ie just as one needed to send out those with any level of tumah from the beis hamikdash, so too marriage needed to be ended if it was failing to be a sublime state of kedusha or tahara, and hence on a Torah level divorce was relatively easy. On the other hand by the time of Chazal, there had been a diminishment in the generations and Chazal felt that as a consequence there were too many gitten being given inappropriately and at whim. They therefore instituted the ketuba (which was never a Torah concept) Of course this was the same Chazal who decided to prioritise chalitza over yibum because the level of the people performing it were not what they were and instead they were engaging in yibbum marriage for the wrong reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Under this understanding, the idea that a man would want to lock a woman “in the beis hamikdash” ie into a state of kedusha and tahara because he did not like her or wanted revenge on her would seem bizarre. It is only once people start to lose this sense both of what marriage is and what divorce is would such a concept even cross their minds.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And this is why I believe that RMB is right that the use of something kodesh as a spade to further battles with the other spouse is just plain wrong (and parallel to meila). One wonders if those who so glibly ask whether, if a woman is being totally unjust in regard to the custody battle (and she may well be doing so), “Why is it not legitimate to use the get as a tool?” would so casually ask the same question regarding the use of a korban or item of hekdesh, if that was the only tool available to the man. It may be permissible for the dust of the azarah to be used to reconcile husband and wife, but to throw in the other’s eyes in an attempt to win advantage in a battle?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And then people wonder why we no longer have a beis hamikdash. On all the evidence we would not know how to treat it properly!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>But note that gitten even b’zman hazeh play a not too dissimilar role to that of korbanos as sometimes understood. There are those of our meforshim who wax eloquent regarding the nature of a korban, and the idea that a person is supposed to see themselves as if it is they, not the korban, that is really being (and deserves to be) burnt on the mizbeach, that the korban is really a substitute for the person bringing it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And in reality the get can also play a part that is not too far from this. Because I strongly suspect that the requirement that a man give a get has in fact saved lives. Because anybody who works with or knows about domestic violence cites that the most dangerous time for women who are subject to domestic violence is when they try and leave, because men (and it is overwhelmingly men) kill because "if I can't have her, nobody shall". <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>And yet that is so often exactly the same motivation which is at the root of get withholding. A Jewish man does not need to kill to achieve a not too dissimilar effect. But yet, unlike murder, get witholding does allow time for pressure to be brought, and for the man to transfer his incoherent hate from the woman to the beis din or to the general world who is “persecuting” him. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>But even if you say that this is the fundamental reason for the get system to be structured as it is, with all the power in the hands of men, on the basis that pikuach nefesh must need override the Torah requirement to do justice (which would otherwise have leaned to make the divorce system much more fairly balanced between the spouses), that clearly does not mean that any bystanders should laud or justify or even accept somebody who is engaged in murder by proxy and is in the process sullying that which is meant to be kodesh. Rather the existence of the get buys them time to attempt to extricate the woman and places a moral obligation on those bystanders to attempt to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Chana<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>