538 —הבהרות על אבטליון, אנטיגנוס, ודיני גיטין

B"H, 1st of Mar-Cheshvan, 5710.

Haraha"g veHaraha"ch vavavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Mehor"y HaLevi

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your letter from the 26th of Tishrei reached me, as well as your book Yavo Shiloh. Many thanks for this cherished gift, and also for your reference to Shaar HaGilgulim vol. II regarding Aristotle. I do not have the Halberstam edition, but I do have the Raavad of Radomsk edition (also printed in Premishlan in 1875), and I saw there—in the section Seder HaGilgul beginning "me'av b'..."—as you wrote in your letter to me. Again I also found in Sedeh Chemed vol. To'ar Aharon under Avtulmus, where it references Sefer Gilgulei Neshamot at the end of the book and Chasla Maayan Heh Nahar Kaf Heh.

What you wrote about all the above is well known: that Avtalyon taught students who were not upright and became Tzedukim—please indicate where this is told. If not for my hesitation, I would simply say that in the original manuscript it said "Ant", meaning Antigonus Ish Socho, and the copyist confused a nun with a bet and interpreted the abbreviation as Avtalyon. But it is difficult to claim a printing error in all these books; also in Midrash Talpiot under Gilgulim they all write Avtalyon.

Regarding what I noted about gittin (in Pardes HaAretz 123ff) that in my opinion it should be two gittin—not that on a get given initially with only witnesses to delivery should two witnesses sign on it itself and deliver it again—my reasons briefly: a) At least initially there must be an instruction to the scribe and writing (according to the first opinion) before signing witnesses who must know about this and not just be there by chance; in your scenario this is impossible because one cannot reveal to the agent ahead of time that he will give the get twice. Even though seemingly this could be fixed by later appointing those present as signing witnesses as you wrote in your book p. 130; but even though regarding severance (keritut) the action of delivery witnesses according to Rabbi Eliezer equals that of signing witnesses according to Rabbi Meir—in regards to a get document itself, clearly the action and responsibility of signing witnesses is greater than that of delivery witnesses even according to those who say they sign only on what is stated in the document; so at the time of instruction and writing when they are only delivery witnesses their seeing is accordingly limited. This is especially relevant here since there is reason to say that signing witnesses are required by Torah law because perhaps the husband wants them for this purpose—as an example: one who immerses for terumah remains impure for kodashim.

b) The get is written on behalf of the husband lest she forget to transfer ownership before giving; also here there is concern if one gives a single get twice—besides concern she may not return it properly after first giving—especially since she just now received full ownership (unlike lulav which is given initially with intent to return).

c) If you say that the main act is the first giving and second giving is only rabbinic due to conditions—then already with first giving this get has fulfilled its function; further research needed if it can be reused for divorce again (another inquiry: can one divorce with one get twice—for example if he divorced her then remarried her on same day—a distant analogy: once offerings have fulfilled their mitzvah they are no longer subject to me'ilah).

d) If you say main act is second giving—then when giving get first time and agent says she should divorce without signing witnesses etc.—this resembles saying "this is like a shard," though distinctions can obviously be made; much more could be written but time does not allow—I only wished to point out these matters.

I will conclude as I began with thanks for your gift and best wishes as customary.

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes textual variants regarding Avtalyon versus Antigonus in rabbinic sources, highlighting manuscript confusion and tradition. He then explores complex halachic issues concerning divorce documents (gittin), focusing on witness roles and procedural integrity.