לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ד - כי תצא ג

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 – Ki Seitzei 3

1. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Gerushin: "A man should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, nor should she sit under him and serve him while he intends to divorce her." He repeats this law in Hilchos Issurei Biah, stating: "It is forbidden for a man to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, as it is said, 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor who dwells securely with you.' However, if he informs her from the outset that he is marrying her for a limited time, it is permitted."

At first glance, it is puzzling why the Rambam needed to present this law in two places — in Hilchos Gerushin and in Hilchos Issurei Biah.

We must also understand the differences between the two locations: In Hilchos Gerushin, he includes the law "nor should she sit under him and serve him while he intends to divorce her," which he does not mention in Hilchos Issurei Biah. In Hilchos Issurei Biah, he provides a source from the verse "Do not devise evil, etc.," and adds a scenario where this prohibition does not apply — "if he informs her from the outset... it is permitted."

The source of these laws is found in two Talmudic discussions (as noted by the commentators): In Yevamos, a Baraisa of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov states, "A man should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, as it is said, 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor who dwells securely with you.'" In Gittin, Rabbi Mesharshia asked Rava, "If his intention is to divorce her while she sits under him and serves him, what is the law?" He replied with the verse, "Do not devise evil against your neighbor who dwells securely with you."

From the fact that the Gemara uses the verse "Do not devise evil, etc." for both the law "a man should not marry with the intention of divorcing" and the law "if his intention is to divorce while she serves him," it is evident that the second law also derives from this verse. Therefore, we must ask why the Rambam cites this verse only in Hilchos Issurei Biah as proof for the first law (not to marry with the intention of divorcing) and not in Hilchos Gerushin (where he mentions both laws).

2. We can explain all this: It is known that the Rambam's approach in the Mishneh Torah is not to cite scriptural sources for the laws he writes in the middle of the halachos and chapters, unless the source is relevant to the definition (and similar aspects) of the law. However, in the enumeration of the mitzvos at the beginning, he is meticulous to bring the scriptural source, as well as at the beginning of the halachos (when it is from the Torah).

Therefore, he brings the verse specifically in Hilchos Issurei Biah, because there it clarifies the continuation of the law "if he informs her from the outset that he is marrying her for a limited time, it is permitted." This is the novelty in Hilchos Issurei Biah, as this permission applies only to the initial marriage — "a man should not marry with the intention of divorcing," and not when she is already "sitting under him" — and this is derived from the verse he cites, as will be explained.

The explanation is as follows: In the statement "Do not devise evil against your neighbor who dwells securely with you" (which implies that this verse refers to "evil" that is otherwise permitted by Torah law), we must clarify — what is the primary prohibition here, which can be interpreted in two ways: a) The emphasis in the prohibition "Do not devise evil, etc." is the reprehensible behavior (and bad trait) of the person who devises evil, deceiving his fellow and plotting against him while his fellow "dwells securely with you"; b) The main issue is the distress and disgrace of his fellow — that his "dwelling securely with you" is in a disgraceful manner (since he is plotting against him).

The practical difference in law — when the "plotter of evil" informs his fellow about this, yet his fellow is in a situation where he continues to dwell with him (for whatever reason): According to the first interpretation, since he informed him, and from now on his dwelling is not in a manner of "securely," and there is no deception, this is not the behavior prohibited by the Torah. However, according to the second interpretation — the prohibition is not removed by this notification, since ultimately (it is difficult for his fellow to leave this dwelling with someone plotting against him, and) he is distressed by it, and therefore it falls under "Do not devise evil, etc."

2. Based on this, we can explain the reasoning behind the dispute among the halachic authorities regarding our case, where "she sits under him and serves him, and his intention is to divorce her" — whether his informing her of his intention to divorce is effective: Some say that informing her is only effective at the beginning of the marriage, because "if she initially agreed to be with him for a limited time, she accepted it; but when he informs her later of his intention to divorce, what can she do, and her heart is distressed within her, and it is considered 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor'." This opinion aligns with the second interpretation mentioned above. However, according to several authorities, "the main prohibition" of devising evil is specifically when "he dwells securely," and therefore, "if he informs her of his intention to divorce, it is permissible, and the verse precisely states 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor while he dwells securely with you,' but if he does not dwell securely, meaning he informs her, there is no issue," aligning with the first interpretation mentioned above.

3. It can be said that according to the Rambam, both aspects are present, meaning there are two laws in the aforementioned prohibition (one law concerning the person's conduct and another concerning the distress of his fellow), and their sources are in two Talmudic discussions:

In Yevamos (in the Baraisa of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov), "A person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her because it is stated, 'Do not devise evil, etc.,'" refers to the prohibition concerning the disgrace of the one who devises evil, which is the straightforward content of the verse — doing evil to one's fellow when his fellow "dwells securely with you." This prohibition applies specifically when the dwelling with his fellow initially comes with the intention of devising evil, meaning this was his intention at the beginning of the marriage — to divorce her afterward.

However, in Tractate Gittin, Rava introduces that even "if his heart is to divorce her and she sits under him and serves him," this is not appropriate conduct according to the verse "Do not devise evil, etc." However, this is not (so much) due to the disgraceful conduct of the one who devises evil, but rather because his fellow's dwelling with him "securely" is a disgraceful and distressing situation, since he is devising evil against her, as mentioned above.

[However, this is not the straightforward content of the verse, and therefore he is precise in his language and does not say "it is forbidden because of 'Do not devise evil, etc.'" and the like, but rather "it is called upon him 'Do not devise evil, etc.'" — that even for this, a person can apply the verse "Do not devise evil, etc."]

It is understood that from this law of "Do not devise evil," meaning the prohibition of causing distress to one's fellow, informing her initially does not help when she sits under him and serves him, and his intention is to divorce her, as mentioned above.

These are the two laws in the Rambam: In the laws of divorce, he brings Rava's ruling (from Tractate Gittin) that "she should not sit under him, etc." due to causing distress to his fellow; whereas in the laws of forbidden relations, he brings (from the Baraisa of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov) the prohibition of marrying a woman with the intention of divorcing her. Therefore, he needed to bring here the verse "Do not devise evil, etc.," and did not write also the law of "she should not sit... and his intention to divorce her" — because his intention here is to define the law and the novel ruling in this, which is prohibited because of "Do not devise evil" (and not because of causing distress, etc.), and therefore — "if he informed her initially... it is permitted."

However, it is still not completely resolved, because from the straightforward language of the Rambam in the laws of forbidden relations "it is forbidden for a person to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, as it is stated, etc.," it implies that he comes to inform not only the definition of the law that he already wrote in the laws of divorce (and the manner in which it is permitted), but also (and primarily) the essence of the prohibition.

Also: According to the above, that the two laws are distinct in their definitions — he should have brought the prohibition of "a person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her" only in the laws of forbidden relations, together with (the source from the verse and) the permission, and in the laws of divorce, he should have brought only the law (from Tractate Gittin) of "if she sits under him, etc."?

4. This will be understood by first examining the precise change in language of the Rambam between the laws of divorce and the laws of forbidden relations, where in the laws of divorce he wrote "a person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her," and in the laws of forbidden relations he wrote "it is forbidden for a person to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her."

It is reasonable to say that according to the Rambam, there are two different laws here, a law in the laws of marriage and divorce, and a law regarding the conduct between a man and his wife, which is (in the laws of forbidden relations) from the verse "Do not devise evil, etc."

The explanation for this is:

5. The essence and definition of the marriage between a man and a woman (as it should be) is, in the language of the verse, "and he shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" — a permanent acquisition and attachment, without any element that leads to or causes separation. The concept of divorce is something that arises after the betrothal and marriage, which weakens and ultimately severs this bond ("cleave").

However, when the acquisition and content of the marriage is such that it contains an element contrary to "and cleave," whether at the beginning of the marriage or after some time, this constitutes a deficiency in the very essence of the marriage.

This is the content of the law in the laws of divorce: "A person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, nor should she sit under him and serve him with the intention of divorcing her." That is, even though there is no prohibition in this, it is nevertheless not a true "marriage" according to Torah. Therefore, "a person should not marry, etc., nor should she sit, etc., with the intention of divorcing her."

Therefore, the Rambam continues in the same law: "A person should not divorce his first wife unless he finds in her a matter of indecency, as it is said, etc., and it is not proper for him to hasten to send away his first wife," because the content of these laws is one: the nature of the marriage itself — "and cleave," which does not allow for its opposite (separation) at all.

However, there is an additional law — "Do not devise evil against your neighbor, who dwells securely with you," which is a prohibition regarding the conduct between people towards each other, and similarly in the conduct between a man and his wife — that "it is forbidden for a person to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her." Therefore, the Rambam wrote this law in the laws of forbidden relations, in the chapter where he explains the conduct between a man and his wife towards each other, among them (and also towards their children, etc.).

6. It can be said that the source of the Rambam is from the two aforementioned statements in the Talmud — the Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in Tractate Yevamot and the inquiry of Rav Mesharshia (and Rava's response to it) in Tractate Gittin:

In Tractate Yevamot, the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov comes in continuation of several statements regarding the prohibitions of marriage (due to concerns and pitfalls that may arise from it) —

And these laws are indeed brought by the Rambam in the subsequent laws in the laws of forbidden relations there — and following this comes the statement regarding the prohibition towards his wife that "a person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her because it is said, 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor, who dwells securely with you';"

But in Gittin, it is in continuation of the discussion and debate explaining the disagreement between Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva regarding when it is permissible to divorce, which we learn from the verses in the section of divorce "and it shall be if she does not find favor in his eyes because he found in her a matter of indecency"; and following Rava's response to Rav Pappa's question "if he did not find in her indecency or a matter, what is the law" — "since the Merciful One revealed regarding a forced marriage that he cannot send her away all his days, etc., there the Merciful One revealed, but here what he did, he did" (and afterwards continues (in the Baraita of Rabbi Meir) with several opinions (measures) regarding the relationship between a man and a woman — in connection to divorce).

And seemingly, what is the relevance within this discussion — whose content is: when is it permissible to divorce, and whether the divorce is effective — of Rav Mesharshia's question to Rava "if his intention is to divorce her and she sits under him and serves him, what is the law" (is there a punishment for this or not)? Moreover, it is explicitly stated in the Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that a person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her because of "Do not devise evil, etc.," so what was Rav Mesharshia uncertain about?

From this, the Rambam deduced that Rav Mesharshia's question is whether this is from the very section of marriage (and divorce), and not just a specific prohibition due to "Do not devise evil, etc.";

And Rava's response "it is said about him 'Do not devise evil, etc.'" — his intention is not that it is forbidden because of "Do not devise evil" (because then he should have said "she should not sit... because of 'Do not devise evil'," or "it is forbidden because of 'Do not devise evil'," and the like), rather — this verse is a revelation that these are not proper marriages, because in such marriages "it is said about him 'Do not devise evil against your neighbor, who dwells securely with you'";

And it turns out that the difference between the Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in Yevamot and Rava's statement in Gittin is: in Yevamot, the verse "Do not devise evil against your neighbor, etc." serves as the source for the law that "a person should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her," and in Gittin, it is a revelation regarding the nature of marriage according to Torah, that throughout the marriage, the "and cleave to his wife" is complete without any element of interruption, etc.

6. Based on this, we can also understand why Rambam did not include in the laws of divorce the ruling that "if he informed her initially, etc., it is permitted." This is because the permission in "informing her" pertains only to the prohibition of "Do not devise evil against your neighbor, who dwells securely with you." However, it does not affect or change the inherent deficiency in the very nature of marriage (and divorce), because even when he informs her of his intention to divorce, it still detracts from the essence of the marriage (and divorce).

7. We can explain this on a deeper level:

Man and woman, in all their details below, are analogous to (and derived from) "man and woman" — this being the Holy One, blessed be He (man) and the Jewish people (woman), as explained at length in the Song of Songs and in the teachings of our Sages.

This is also relevant to our discussion — the marriage (and divorce) of a man and woman stems from the marriage, so to speak, between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel. As expressed in the blessing recited at the betrothal of every Jew, "Who sanctifies His people Israel through the chuppah and betrothal." This means that the marriage (betrothal and marriage) of every Jew is, so to speak, a part of the sanctification of His people Israel, from the "general marriage" between the Holy One, blessed be He, and His people (the congregation of Israel).

Based on this, it is even more understandable why one of the definitions of marriage is that it is an eternal bond, because the marriage of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is written on the day of His wedding (of the Holy One, blessed be He, with the children of Israel), which is the giving of the Torah, is an eternal bond (which cannot be interrupted, G‑d forbid).

8. However, according to what was explained earlier regarding the prohibition of "marrying a woman with the intention of divorcing her" — that this is not only an improper conduct on the part of the man, but a deficiency in the very essence of the marriage — we need to understand the marriage of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel:

It is known that the entire concept of exile is analogous to the concept of divorce, as it is stated in the Midrash, "I judged them with divorce." And as it is stated in the Gemara, "The congregation of Israel gave a decisive answer to the prophet, etc., a woman whose husband divorced her, do they have any claim against each other?" And since the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that there would be the concept of exile — it seems that, so to speak, there is an element of "one should not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her"?

Simply put, it can be said that it is not applicable to say here that "His intention was to divorce," because the entire concept of exile is only a result of the conduct of Israel, and there is complete free choice in this matter, and only "because of our sins we were exiled from our land," and without our sins, there would be no divorce at all.

[And even though it is explicitly stated in the Torah, "When you beget children and grandchildren and have been long in the land and act corruptly, etc., and the L‑rd will scatter you among the nations, etc.," which is stated in a definite manner (that this will indeed happen), and the Torah preceded the world, it turns out that already at the time of the giving of the Torah, it was, so to speak, "His intention to divorce" after a time (when "you have been long in the land, etc.") —

This is not a question, because (a) these verses were stated after the giving of the Torah, in the fortieth year, and as long as it was not revealed in the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He, there could still be a change; and also (b) even if we say that they are considered as "speech," and even after they were stated in actuality, Rambam writes regarding words of calamity that the prophet says, "If his words do not come true, it is not a contradiction to his prophecy... for the Holy One, blessed be He, is long-suffering and abundant in kindness and relents from evil, and it is possible that they repented and were forgiven."]

However, it is still not fully resolved, because since, after all, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew at the time of the giving of the Torah that there would be the concept of exile, then even if we say that it is not in the category of "His intention (and desire) to divorce" — because man is given the choice to behave in a way that there will be no exile (and this is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He) — nevertheless, after all, the marriage was not made (from His side, blessed be He) in a manner of a lasting bond, an eternal bond — and it turns out that there is a deficiency, G‑d forbid, in the marriage of the Holy One, blessed be He, and Israel?

8. The explanation for this is:

The Gemara there continues that the Holy One, blessed be He, responds to the congregation of Israel, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce with which I sent her away?" meaning that there was no divorce ("bill of divorce").

9. Therefore, it must be said that the statement in the Gemara earlier, "The congregation of Israel gave a decisive answer, etc., a woman whose husband divorced her, etc.," is because exile is a concept of divorce (only) from the perspective of the congregation of Israel. During the time of exile, the Jewish people do not feel the closeness of the Holy One, blessed be He, to them, and therefore they claim that it is a state of "a woman whose husband divorced her."

However, the truth is that even during the exile, the marriage between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel has not, G‑d forbid, been severed (it is just not visible in a revealed manner).

On the contrary, the entire purpose of the concealment of the Divine countenance during the time of exile, "And I will surely hide My face, etc.," is only so that "you will seek the L‑rd your G‑d from there, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul... and you will return to the L‑rd your G‑d and listen to His voice." Through this, a deeper bond of "attachment" is revealed, where even when the Jewish people are dispersed among the nations, they remain the wife of the Holy One, blessed be He, and are attached to Him.

And by the Jewish people behaving as a "virtuous wife" and demonstrating their attachment to G‑d (through the observance of Torah and mitzvos), then, measure for measure, the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, with Israel is in such a manner that (even) all the nations see that there is no divorce between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Jewish people. They clearly see the protection and providence of the Holy One, blessed be He, over Israel, and He, blessed be He, fulfills all their needs (their sustenance, clothing, and marital rights) in a way that even at the (end) of the time of exile, there is "abundant goodness for the house of Israel" in the literal sense,

and they go immediately to the true and complete redemption, when the perfection of the marriage between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel will be revealed, "And it shall be on that day, says the L‑rd, you will call Me 'my husband' and no longer call Me 'my master'," with the coming of our righteous Moshiach speedily in our days, amen.