547 —שאלות על אבטליון, סדרי גיטין, והבהרות הלכתיות

B"H, 26th of Iyar, 5710.

Haraha"g vavaha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Moreinu HaRav Y. Halevi

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from the 10th of this month: A) Regarding Avtalion and his reincarnation—it's difficult for me to add, as you suggest, a few lines based on our own reasoning. And if it's because of a difficulty—there are always possible answers. This is unlike the correction I suggested in my letter, that the scribe confused the letter nun with bet since their forms are very similar; this is a very minor and therefore common error. Incidentally: In this matter there is another novelty found in the writings of the Arizal (Shaar HaGilgulim introduction 36)—that Avtalion was the brother of Shmaya.

B) Regarding the get—you challenge what I wrote that the action and responsibility of the signing witnesses is greater than that of those who deliver it. I regret that in your haste you apparently skipped over some words in my letter. My wording there was: "Even though regarding severance (keritut), according to Rabbi Eliezer, the action of those who deliver is equal to that of those who sign according to Rabbi Meir; nevertheless regarding the document itself, it is clear that the action and responsibility of the witnesses who sign on the get is greater than those who deliver it—even according to those who say they sign only for monetary matters." And this is obvious: In a get there must be 'and he gave,' which effects severance; but before this there must be 'and he wrote for her a bill of severance,' meaning he must create a document with all aspects and force of a bill of severance. The writing does not become such except through the signing witnesses (whether by Torah law or rabbinic). Or in other words: There are two stages in a get process. First one must make a get document, then use it for divorce. The first stage has no connection to delivery witnesses (by law), so they have no role or responsibility here. But the action and responsibility of signing witnesses applies specifically at this stage. And that witnesses must be present at writing is also relevant to this first stage. All this is straightforward; hence I was brief in my previous letter.

C) I noted that if one gives a single get twice there is concern—which we are careful about in every get—that one might forget to transfer ownership of the get back to the husband. You object since everything is done under Beit Din supervision; if Beit Din says delivery was mistaken it's as if she never received it. But that's not so: A) Every get is done under Beit Din supervision yet we still worry about this issue. B) Most importantly: In delivering a get two things happen—the document becomes property of the woman; and she becomes divorced from her husband. If Beit Din tells them delivery was mistaken, they know they must redo it—but not everyone knows she must transfer ownership back to her husband; special notification is needed for this. Moreover, your procedure doesn't mention this (and your phrase "this giving counts for nothing" [in your book p. 130 sec. 143] implies she never acquired it initially—so how can you change wording without contradicting what's needed for reacquisition). Since giving one get twice is extremely uncommon, there's even more risk of forgetting; Beit Din's authority doesn't help here—as known, Beit Din cannot both remove from one party and give to another.

D) You write it's impossible to say that the second giving is only rabbinic in nature—I don't know why not. It's possible to say that the husband wasn't particular about his instruction but just wanted to ease delivery; his intent was that delivery witnesses alone suffice and he didn't care if signing witnesses were also present. In such a case, with the first delivery she was divorced—but due to enactment or suspicion she needs another delivery with signing witnesses as well. See Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer sec. 130 subsec. 101-103 and Sdei Chemed Get sec. 26 end subsec. 1.

E) You want to bring proof for divorcing twice with one get from Bekhorot (9a), where one redeems repeatedly with different lambs; also from Parah (ch.11 mishna 8), where hyssop used once remains valid for purifying lepers—which seems opposite from my proof from Kodashim where items lose sanctity after their mitzvah use. But it's not comparable: The doubt by get arises because its power comes from an added element—a new status written by husband's command etc.—so does this status remain permanently on paper (like priestly garments which after use can still be misused—Kiddushin 54a), or does it expire after use? That's why I brought proof from Kodashim—there too sanctity comes from an added element but expires after use; whereas by redemption or purification repeated use works precisely because nothing new has been added each time.

F) You note Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer sec.130 subsec.13 says not to divorce twice with one get since it's like a document whose lien has been nullified—thank you for pointing out this Pitchei Teshuvah which I had missed! The book Galia Masechet cited there isn't at hand now for review—but at first glance this logic seems very strange: By kiddushin documents such logic applies—but what lien exists in a get that could be nullified? On the contrary—a get annuls liens! Why would a properly written get become invalid? And "for sake of divorce," our sages explain (Gittin 25b), excludes writing just for practice; based on above perhaps even more should be required—that it be written specifically for divorcing THIS woman now! As for Pitchei Teshuvah's claim all authorities disqualify such gets—I haven't found their sources yet; further investigation needed.

G) You write my comment comparing this case to "let it become like pottery" has been resolved—I don't understand how; on the contrary per Pitchei Teshuvah sec.130 it only strengthens my point.

Summary

The Rebbe carefully addresses complex halachic issues regarding textual variants about Avtalion and intricate laws concerning gittin (Jewish divorce documents). He emphasizes precision in reading sources and highlights nuanced distinctions between different types of halachic responsibilities.