Igrot Kodesh · Letter 547 — Get Law and Reincarnation of Avtalyon

By the grace of Hashem,

26 Mar'Cheshvan* 5710,

To the great Rabbi, distinguished Chassid* who fears Hashem,

Rav I.[1],

I greet you and bless you,

I reply to your letter of the 10th of this month:

A) Regarding Avtalyon* and reincarnation*[2], I do not know how to state my own view in a few lines, as you request. If a question arises, all the commentaries can be elaborated upon. Conversely, if it is a matter of changing a letter, as I proposed[2], of replacing a Nun* with a Bet* — that is, two letters that resemble each other — this is only a minor modification and therefore a frequent one.

In fact, another new idea can be found on this subject in the writings of the Ari Zal*, in the thirty-sixth introduction of Sha'ar HaGilgulim*. That text specifies that Avtalyon was the brother of Shemaya*.

B) Regarding the bill of divorce*, you contest my assertion that the responsibility of the witnesses who sign the bill is greater than that of the witnesses who attend its transmission. I regret to say that you must have read my letter hastily and skipped a few words. Here is what I said:

'For the divorce becomes effective through the witnesses of the transmission according to Rabbi Eliezer*, and through the witnesses who sign the bill according to Rabbi Meir*. Nevertheless, it is clear that the responsibility of those who sign the bill of divorce is greater than that of the witnesses who attend the transmission, including according to the opinion that defines their commitment in relation to the financial amount stated in the bill.'

This is self-evident. A bill of divorce must be given, and it is then that the separation becomes effective; but before that, it must be properly written so that it constitutes a valid document. For it to be considered as such, witnesses must sign it, and it matters not whether this obligation is established by the Torah* or by the Sages*.

In other words, a bill of divorce is accomplished in two stages. It must first be drafted, and then used to effect the divorce. According to Halakha*, the witnesses of the transmission play no part whatsoever in the first stage and therefore cannot bear responsibility for it. By contrast, the responsibility of the witnesses who sign the bill is already engaged.

Moreover, the presence of witnesses at the drafting of the bill is an integral part of this first stage. All of this is quite evident, which is why I did not elaborate in my previous letter.

C) I observed that if one transmits the same bill twice, a risk arises — one that is encountered systematically in such cases — of forgetting to have the husband re-acquire the bill of divorce. You contest this by noting that everything is carried out under the responsibility of the court*. If the court rules that the transmission was improper, it is as though it never took place.

This is not correct, because:

1. Each bill of divorce is established by the court, and this risk remains nonetheless.

2. Most importantly, the transmission of the bill has two effects. First, the bill now belongs to the woman. Second, she is now divorced. If the court rules that the divorce is invalid, it means that it must be effected anew. Yet one cannot assume that everyone has studied the Law and knows that the woman must cause the bill to be re-acquired by the husband. One must therefore take into account what happens in that situation.

This precaution is not mentioned in your divorce ceremony. And the formulation 'this transmission is not valid,' which appears on page 130, paragraph 43, indicates that the woman has not acquired this bill of divorce. One may therefore ask how to modify it so that it does not contradict the necessity of transferring the bill from the woman back to the husband.

Furthermore, this is a very rare case. It is indeed hardly conceivable to transmit the same bill of divorce twice, and the risk of forgetting is therefore very great. Moreover, a declaration by the court that this bill belongs to no one would be of no use, for the court does not have the power to remove an object from one person's domain in order to transfer it to another.

D) You say that it is impossible to imagine that the second transmission was instituted solely by our Sages. I do not know the reason for this assertion. One may consider that the husband did not take his obligation to heart, that he only wished to facilitate the transmission of the bill. He may therefore have thought that the witnesses of the transmission were sufficient, and that it was therefore unnecessary to also have witnesses sign the bill.

In such a case, the first divorce would be the valid one, but for the sake of good order and to avoid disputes, witnesses signing the bill would also be required. You should consult, in this regard, the Yefe To'ar* on Even HaEzer*, chapter 130, paragraphs 101 and 111, and the Sdei Chemed* Asefat Dinim on divorce, chapter 26, end of paragraph 1.

E) You wish to prove that one may divorce twice with the same bill, drawing from tractate Bekhorot* 9a, according to which one may redeem[3] and then do so again with another sheep. Similarly, tractate Parah* 11:8 states that a hyssop branch used for sprinkling may be reused to purify a leper*, which contradicts the proof I drew from sacrifices, noting that one is not liable if they used them for personal use after they had already served.

These cases are not comparable at all. The bill of divorce is valid the second time because a new element was added to it. The husband ordered it to be written, it was drafted for specific individuals, and the question that arises is therefore the following: are the characteristics given by the husband permanently acquired by this paper — as the garments worn by the Cohen* which have worn out but retain their sanctity and may not be used for personal use — or were these characteristics given to the bill only for the first transmission, after which they disappear? This is why I cited a proof from sacrifices, which are likewise consecrated by virtue of a new characteristic being added to them.

The situation of one who redeems multiple times or who purifies is entirely different. It is quite clear that one may redeem or purify only insofar as no new element has intervened.

F) You cite the Pit'chei Teshuva* on Even HaEzer*, chapter 143, paragraph 13, according to which a bill of divorce may not be used twice, it being like a document that has become void.

I thank you for bringing this explanation of the Pit'chei Teshuva to my attention, which had escaped me. I do not own the Galya Masekhet, which cites the Pit'chei Teshuva, and I therefore cannot consult its reasoning, but this reasoning seems very curious. One may indeed consider this for a marriage contract*, but how could a bill of divorce become void? Is not its very purpose to establish a separation?

How can a document written for a husband and wife in order to divorce them be disqualified? Our Sages say, in tractate Gittin* 25b, that this excludes a bill written by a scribe to perfect his apprenticeship. Yet according to what has just been said, it would have been preferable to state that it was written for this woman and for this divorce.

The Pit'chei Teshuva says that all the Decisors* reject such a bill of divorce. For the moment, I have not found them, and the matter is genuinely open to question.

G) You say that my observation contains its own refutation, since it resembles a declaration of the bill's invalidity.

I do not understand this objection, for on the contrary, my observation is reinforced by what the Pit'chei Teshuva says in chapter 143. This is quite evident.

I conclude by wishing you all the best,

Rav Menachem Schneerson*,

Notes

[1] Rav Yeshaya Horowitz. See letter no. 429.

[2] See letter no. 538 on this subject.

[3] A firstborn animal.

---

547

By the grace of Hashem,

29 Mar'Cheshvan* 5710,

To the great Rabbi, distinguished Chassid* who fears Hashem,

Rav A.[1],

I greet you and bless you,

I have duly received your letter of the 21st of Mar'Cheshvan*, and I obtained, some time ago, the response of the great Rabbi, Rav Y. Landa*[2], of which I enclose a copy, which will surely be of interest to you.

Thus your undertaking[3] will be carried out with greater precision and in the best manner.

I conclude by greeting all those close to you,

M. Schneerson*,

Notes

[1] Rav Asher Abramson. See letter no. 540.

[2] See letters no. 539 and 54.

[3] The construction of a Mikveh*.

תקמז*

ב"ה, כ"ט מרחשון, ה'תש"י
הרה"ג והרה"ח הוו"ח אי"א נו"מ וכו'

מוהר"א שי'

שלום וברכה!

נתקבל מכתבו מכ"א מ"ח, וזה לא כבר הגיעני מענה מהרה"ג וכו' מהור"י שי' לנדא, והנני מסג"פ העתק ממנו, ובטח ימצא ענין בו. ומיני' ומיני' תסתייעא מילתא ביותר דקדוק והידור.

החותם בפ"ש כל החבורה תח'

מ. שניאורסאהן
תקמז*
מצילום האגרת.

מוהר " א : אברמסון. אגרת נוספת אליו- לעיל תקמ.

מענה... לנדא : ראה לעיל אגרות תקלט-מ.