Ki Teitzei: Forging Our Bond With G-d

From the verses in this week’s Torah reading5 – “When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, if she does not find favor in his eyes… he should write a bill of divorce for her… and she will leave his house and go and marry another man” – our Sages derive6 that “a woman can be acquired [as a wife] with [a gift of] money, with a bill [of marriage], or through intimate relations.” The validity of a gift of money is derived from the phrase,7 “When a man takes a wife….” The continuation of this verse, “and is intimate with her,” teaches8 that intimacy is a valid means of consecration, and the validity of a bill of marriage is derived from the phrases, “she leave[s] his house and go[es] and marries.” Regarding the latter, our Sages comment,9 “An association is made between her marriage to the one and her leaving the other. Just as her departure from this one [is brought about] via a legal document, her marriage to the other [is brought about] via a legal document.”

Although a woman may be consecrated to her husband via any of these three means, nevertheless, “it has become universal Jewish practice to consecrate [a woman] by [giving her] money or an article [such as a ring] worth money.”10 It could be said this relates to the fact that consecration via a gift of money is the first means of consecration derived from the verse, “When a man takes a wife….”11

Every element of the Torah is extremely precise. Accordingly, as explained below, we see that consecrating a woman with a gift of money expresses the significance and the general theme of consecration to a greater extent than [either giving her] a bill [of marriage] or intimate relations.

The Talmud12 mentions another means of deriving that the transfer of money is an effective means of bringing about the consecration of a woman, citing the verse,13 “[Then] she shall go out without payment, without money.” From that verse, our Sages conclude,⁸ “This master, [the owner of a Hebrew maid-servant who releases her], does not [receive] any money, but there is another master who does [receive] money [when a maiden leaves his authority].14 Who is that? [Her] father.”15 That is to say, a father can consecrate his underage daughter by accepting money from the prospective husband.

It can be said that the source for the consecration of a woman via a gift of money – whether it is the verse, “When a man takes a wife…,” from our Torah reading, or “Then she shall go out without payment, without money”16 – leads to a distinction regarding the categorization of the consecration.

To understand the distinction between the two approaches, it is necessary to first explain a query of Rabbi Yosef Rosen, the Rogatchover Gaon,17 regarding the determining factor in the consecration of a woman with a gift of money: Is the cause the acquisition of the money and, as a result, the woman becomes consecrated to her husband? Or is the opposite true? Is the cause the consecration and, as a result, the woman acquires the money or article given her?18 In other words: Does the consecration take effect because of the acquisition of the money, or does the acquisition of the money take effect because of the consecration?

The Rogatchover Gaon offers support for both views. Regarding the second thesis, he makes the following argument: The law19 is that when a woman is standing in the public domain and her husband throws a bill of divorce to her and it lands close[r] to her than to him, she is divorced. After stating this concept in connection with divorce, the Talmud concludes, “[This] also applies regarding consecration (kiddushin).” According to the approach of the Rishonim,20 this law applies not only to a bill of marriage, but also to money given for the kiddushin. Thus, if a man tossed money to a woman and it fell on the ground close[r] to her than to him, she would be consecrated.

On the surface, the matter is problematic. According to the principles of Jewish business law, ordinarily when money is thrown to a woman and it does not fall within four cubits of where she is standing, she would not acquire it.21 How then is she consecrated? From this, there is support for the thesis that “the cause [for acquiring the money] is the consecration and, because of [the consecration], she acquires the object.” In other words, she acquires the money as a result of becoming consecrated.22

Conversely, the Rogatchover Gaon also brings support for the first thesis – that the cause is the acquisition of the money – and it is the acquisition of the money that brings about the women’s consecration.23 He brings evidence from the fact that, according to the Talmud,24 generally, when a person corrects himself in the moments directly after speaking,25 his words are considered as a single statement and, therefore, he may change his mind and retract what he said previously. However, that principle does not apply regarding a woman’s consecration. Once a man consecrates a woman, he cannot retract his statement that he is consecrating her, not even directly after he initially makes it.

Rashbam26 interprets that law as follows:

If a man consecrates a woman in the presence of witnesses, but directly after speaking retracts [his declaration] and says that [the money] should be a present and should not bring about kiddushin,27 [his words] are not [entirely] accepted and [the woman’s status is in doubt; it is as if] she is [both] consecrated and not consecrated.

Clarification is necessary. Why does Rashbam describe an instance where the man says that the money should be a present and should not bring about the consecration? Why does he not use a straightforward example: the man retracts the gift of the money entirely and demands it back from the woman?

From Rashbam’s choice of this interpretation,28 it is evident that in the instance described immediately beforehand, the man could retract his gift. The rationale is that, by and large, with the exception of consecration and other select instances, “the law is [that when a person corrects himself] in the moments directly after speaking, it is considered as [a single] statement.”²⁰ Accordingly, if he makes this retraction directly after speaking, a man can retract the gift of money and his transfer of ownership of it. As a result, since the money did not become the woman’s property, she would not be consecrated. This is possible because one may retract the transfer of the ownership of the money directly after speaking.

However, it is, specifically, in Rashbam’s instance, where the man lets the woman keep the money as a gift, and his retraction does not concern the transfer of the money, but merely the consecration of the woman, that the law mentioned previously – that a man may not retract a consecration – applies. Since his retraction does not affect a change in the ownership of the money – it remains a gift given to the woman – the law is that his words are not entirely accepted, since one may not retract a consecration, even directly after speaking.

This law serves as support for the thesis that “the acquisition of the money is the cause.” Were one to say that “the cause is the consecration” and because of that the woman acquires the object given, the above-mentioned passage from the Talmud could be interpreted straightforwardly – that he desired to retract the gift of money. Nevertheless, no heed would be given to his words. The reason is that the transfer of the money comes about because of the kiddushin. Since it is impossible to retract the kiddushin – even directly after speaking – as a natural consequence, it is impossible to retract the transfer of the money (for its transfer is a result of the kiddushin). Accordingly, neither the kiddushin nor the transfer of the money would be nullified.

It is specifically when we accept the approach that “the cause is the acquisition” – meaning that the kiddushin begins with the transfer of the money and, therefore, the man could retract it, like he could retract any transfer of property – that Rashbam must explain29 that, in this instance, the man did not desire to retract the transfer of the money. (Changing his mind regarding the designation of the money – considering it as a present and not as having been given for the sake of the kiddushin does not constitute a retraction of his transfer of ownership of the money to the women. Since he desired to retract only from the kiddushin and have the money be considered a present,30 his retraction is not effective.)

It can be said that the difference between the two opinions as to the derivation of the source for the effectiveness of giving money to bring about kiddushin – i.e., whether the source of the concept is the verse, “When a man takes a wife…,” or the verse, “Then she shall go out without payment, without money” – can be explained as follows:

The emphasis of the verse, “When a man takes a wife…” is on the man taking the active role. By contrast, the Talmud’s inference from the verse, “Then she shall go out without payment, without money,” that “this master does not [receive] any money, but there is another master who does [receive] money,” places the emphasis on the other master, i.e., the girl’s father, the recipient, for he – acting in the place of his daughter (the woman) – receives the money. It is the woman’s or her agent’s acceptance of the money, i.e., the act of acquisition, that brings about the kiddushin.

Accordingly, if the effectiveness of the transfer of money in bringing about a woman’s consecration is derived from the verse, “When a man takes a wife…,” it is logical to assume that the act of the prospective husband giving the money – “When a man takes a wife…” – is what brings about the kiddushin. The kiddushin are what causes the woman to acquire the money.31

By contrast, if the effectiveness of the transfer of money in bringing about a woman’s consecration is derived from “but there is another master who does [receive] money,”32 it is logical to say the man’s gift of money is not sufficient in and of itself to cause the woman to be consecrated. Instead, the consecration is brought about by her accepting the money once its ownership has been transferred. Thus, the emphasis is on the woman receiving and acquiring the money.

All the concepts explained in nigleh, the revealed, primarily legalistic dimension of the Torah, have their source and are extensions of the roots of these matters as they exist in p’nimiyus haTorah, the inner, mystical dimension of Torah. This is also true regarding the issue at hand.

As is well known,33 the inner meaning of a woman becoming consecrated to her husband34 refers to the bond of kiddushin and the corresponding union between G‑d and the Jewish people. This bond is brought about through the spiritual parallels to the transfer of money, a bill of marriage, and intimacy.35 On the earthly plane, there are two aspects involved in a man’s consecration of a woman as his wife:36 a) the woman becomes consecrated to him and b) she becomes forbidden to all other men. Similarly, there are parallels to these two aspects of the bond of kiddushin which unites G‑d and the Jewish people:37 a) the Jews’ intimate attachment (d’veikus) to G‑d and b) their separation and detachment from all things that disturb and conceal that bond – i.e., worldly matters. Put simply, this means separating oneself and remaining detached from desires for worldly matters.

On the earthly plane, these two aspects of kiddushin are interrelated and cannot be separated from each other. The same is true regarding the bond of kiddushin between the Jewish people and G‑d. Both of the above motifs must be manifest within a person, as Chovos HaLevavos38 states, “It is impossible for the love for the Creator to be established in our hearts together with the establishment of love for worldly [matters] within us.”

On this basis, we can understand the inner, mystical reason for the Jewish custom of consecrating a woman specifically through giving a wedding ring, an object of monetary value. The inner dimension of the kiddushin, the union between the Jews and G‑d, is connected primarily with the spiritual counterpart of money, kessef (כסף), silver, as in the phrase,39 nichsof nichsafti (נכסוף נכספתי), “I deeply yearned,” i.e., referring to the Divine service of love.40 The fundamental goal of that service is to bring about a connection and attachment to G‑dliness, as reflected by the saying,41 “There is no service comparable to the service of love.”

Based on the above, it is possible to understand the inner meaning of the two theses mentioned above regarding the money given to bring about the kiddushin – whether the fundamental cause is the acquisition of the money and the kiddushin comes about as a result or that the fundamental cause is the kiddushin and the money is acquired as a result of it. Our Sages42 teach, “These and these are the words of the living G‑d,” i.e., at least from an inner, spiritual perspective both theses are valid.

The acquisition of money (kessef, associated with yearning and love), alludes to the union and attachment of the Jews with G‑d, as mentioned above. Kiddushin – (derived from the word kadosh, which has the connotation of separation and distinction)43 – alludes to the detachment from worldly matters. Although both concepts are interrelated, as mentioned previously, there are two approaches regarding which is the cause and which comes first. This is dependent on the mode and structure of the Divine service, whether it involves ascending from a lower level of service to a higher one, or beginning with a higher level of service, drawing it down, and affecting levels lower than it.44

When considering the motif of upward ascent, the initial step is the kiddushin. First, a Jew must begin by separating himself from the desires of this world. Through this, he will be aroused with love and yearning for G‑dliness (the spiritual counterpart to the acquisition of kessef, money).45 In other words, the process is one of first, “turn[ing] away from evil,”46 and only afterwards,47 “do[ing] good.”

The Divine service that begins from a higher level of service, where a Jew responds to a revelation from Above and draws it down to a lower level, follows an opposite motif. After being aroused to experience feelings of love for G‑d, i.e., having acquired kessef, the kiddushin is brought about; he becomes separated from worldly matters.

The difference between these two motifs – ascent upward or a revelation from Above descending downward – results from the fact that they constitute two distinct types of service. The first mode involves Divine service based on an order and a structure, which follows a pattern dictated by the logic and wisdom of holiness. And logic dictates that a person is unable to attain a love for G‑d before he separates himself from the love and desire for worldly matters.³⁴

The second mode involves Divine service that is not limited by an order and a structure; it transcends logic and reason. Without considering his own spiritual standing,48 a person gives himself over and cleaves to G‑d. This comes about through kabbalas ol, accepting G‑d’s yoke with a commitment that transcends logic and reason. Through this all-encompassing commitment, he becomes detached and free from the desires and pleasures of this world.

It can be said that this distinction is also reflected in the distinction between the sources from which the concept of consecration through the transfer of money is derived: Is the source the verse, “When a man takes a wife…” – a passage that focuses on the kiddushin? Or is it derived from the verse, “Then she shall go out without payment, without money,” which concerns a Hebrew maid-servant?

In the passage that focuses on the kiddushin – i.e., the kiddushin according to the ordinary pattern of Divine service – the order is that first it is necessary to bring about the kiddushin, i.e., separation from worldly matters. Afterwards, kessef – love and union with G‑d – can be attained.

By contrast, when the concept of kiddushin is derived from the passage concerning a Hebrew maid-servant, the emphasis is on the service of a servant, which in general involves service with kabbalas ol, a mode of service that transcends logic and knowledge. Through kiddushin of this nature, a person can be given over and devoted to G‑dliness even before he has separated himself from worldly matters. The extent that he is given over to G‑dliness in a manner that transcends logic and knowledge can be so great and overwhelming that, as a result, he is detached from worldly concerns as a matter of course.

On a deeper level, the above concept – that through kabbalas ol, kiddushin are brought about – has a specific connection to the spiritual counterpart of a Hebrew maid-servant.

It can be said that these two paths of Divine service are also appropriate to the different levels of the Jews who perform this service. When a person’s level is such that it is necessary for him to safeguard himself and separate himself from the desires of this world in a simple sense, the ordinary pattern is that he cannot attain the higher levels of Divine service, a union and attachment to G‑d motivated by love.49 First, he must nullify the evil within his being, i.e., his desires for worldly matters.50 As such, the initial step is kiddushin (separation and detachment) and only afterwards, can the person move to the acquisition of kessef, (i.e., unity and attachment to G‑dliness).

When, however, one has already separated himself from the desires of the world in a simple sense, an even higher level of separation is demanded from him – to detach himself from the nature of his emotional tendencies51 and to serve G‑d in a manner not restricted by his nature. Such a level of detachment is brought about through Divine service of mochin degadlus, an expanded intellectual capacity, or meditation on G‑dliness involving the depths of the heart. This affects the nature of his emotional attributes to the extent that they are totally transformed. This spiritual process is representative of the approach that maintains that the primary cause is the spiritual counterpart of acquisition of money, the attainment of love, and that the kiddushin, the withdrawal from worldly matters, comes about as a result. Similarly, as a result of such meditation, an individual’s desire for G‑dliness is of an entirely different nature than his prior desire for the pleasures of this world, involving a transformation of his emotional tendencies.52

This is why this particular conception of a woman’s consecration – that the primary cause is the acquisition of money – is derived specifically from the passage involving a Hebrew maid-servant, for the spiritual level of a Hebrew maid-servant involves⁴⁸ transforming one’s emotional tendencies from one nature to another. This resembles the service of a Hebrew maid-servant in a simple sense: She takes ordinary grain and makes from it cooked delicacies.

Since every particular soul⁴⁸ contains all the various levels of Divine service, we have the potential to devote ourselves entirely to G‑dliness with love and attachment. And as a natural consequence, we will be removed from desiring and yearning for worldly matters to the extent that our emotional tendencies will be transformed from one nature to another.

Through such Divine service, “a woman will be consecrated to her husband,”³⁰ there will be unity and attachment between the Jewish people and G‑d, a complete union, which is the inner conception of the bond of marriage.53 This is accomplished through our Divine service in the era of exile, which is comparable to a woman’s consecration, and which will enable us to reach a relationship of marriage with G‑d in the very near future.

Adapted from a sichah delivered on 13 Elul,54 Shabbos Parshas Ki Seitzei, 5714 (1954)