The Quality of Peace
The breakup of a Jewish home, the divorce of husband and wife, is one of the most difficult and painful matters imaginable, so much so that our Sages say that a divorce even pains G‑d: “Whoever divorces his wife ... even the Altar [in the Beis HaMikdash] sheds tears.”1
Moreover, our Sages inform us that we are commanded to do all that we can to bring about shalom bayis between husband and wife. Whoever does so is richly rewarded both in this world as well as the World to Come:2 “A person enjoys its fruits — the fruits of bringing about shalom bayis — in this world, while the principal reward remains in the World to Come.”
Even if a husband thinks that the Torah obligates him to divorce his wife because “he has found her guilty of unchastity, it is not proper to divorce her in haste. Rather, he is to thoroughly investigate the matter, for possibly he need not divorce her.”3 In other words, we are to do all we can to prevent a breakup of the Jewish home.
This teaches us the great importance of shalom bayis, living a tranquil and joyful married life, a life where husband and wife dwell together in peace and harmony.
Simply Separating the Bodies Does Not Suffice
In order to understand the effect of a Jewish divorce, we must first contemplate the difference between Jewish divorce and divorce as practiced among other nations.
Unlike marriage — where there is at least an external similarity between Jewish and non-Jewish marriages; both involving living a physical and intimate life together — divorce is entirely different.
Rambam writes4 that divorce as practiced by other nations consists of the following: “When he removes her from the house and sends her away, leaving her to her own devices; or when she decides to leave his domain and strike out for herself, the woman thereby becomes divorced.”
This means that among other nations, divorce takes place through the act of physical separation, when husband and wife cease sharing a life together under the same roof.
With regard to the Jewish people, however, divorce does not simply involve severing physical connections and contact, ceasing to live under the same roof. Even if husband and wife have distanced themselves from each other and are thousands of miles apart, they remain absolutely married in all respects until they formally divorce through the Jewish divorce procedure of gerushin.
Separation of the Soul
The difference between the manner that divorce takes place among other nations and the way it takes place among the Jewish people directly relates to their different forms of marriage.
A Jewish marriage involves not only a physical degree of closeness and familiarity, but a spiritual level of proximity and intimacy as well, where the soul of husband and wife merge and blend, becoming truly one (as explained at length in the introductory chapter, based on the holy Zohar5 ).
A Jewish divorce thus requires much more than physical separation. It also requires the spiritual disconnection and sundering of a soul. This is achieved through a scribe’s writing a proper get, or bill of divorce, before a Jewish court and before witnesses.6
Issuing a formal religious bill of divorce is not necessary, however, with other nations. Since their marriage connection is merely physical, their separation as well is accomplished merely through a physical act: ceasing to live together under the same roof as husband and wife.
The Mitzvah of Remarrying One’s Divorced Wife
Even after a couple has divorced, it is a mitzvah for them to remarry, as the Chinuch states,7 “It is befitting to remarry her.”
Why is remarrying one’s former wife considered a mitzvah? Since they lived together for a number of years and found it impossible to make a go of it, thus divorcing, what possible benefit can there be in their remarriage?
However, this has everything to do with the bond that is formed between husband and wife through their marriage.
As explained at length in the introductory chapter, in the celestial realms husband and wife were truly one, sharing the same soul. In their descent below, they were sundered into two, man and woman, with half the soul clothed in the man and the other half vested in the woman. At the time of their wedding, these two halves reunite and once again become one soul.
Thus, in reality, there was a concealed connection between husband and wife even before they were married — both sharing the same spiritual source — only that before their marriage, their connection was entirely hidden. Through their marriage, this connection was revealed.
The same is true with divorce.When a couple divorces, their spiritual bond and union reverts to its state of existence prior to their marriage, when their soul was split in half. It is impossible, however, for them to change the reality and actuality that they both emanate from and belong to the same spiritual source as they are essentially one soul.8
Consequently, the relationship of a Jewish husband and wife after their divorce is entirely different from that of a divorced non-Jewish couple.
Were marriage simply a connection of essentially disparate entities, then when their differences become irreconcilable and the couple’s marriage fails, they permanently break away from each other by getting divorced. They then go on to build their new and utterly separate lives.
However, the marriage of a Jewish husband and wife is so much more than a physical relationship. It is primarily a reunification of their one soul.
Therefore, a) before a couple divorces, they must weigh the consequences with the utmost seriousness and consider and reconsider whether their marriage can be saved. This is to such an extent that “even if he has found her guilty of unchastity, it is not proper to divorce her in haste. Rather, he is to thoroughly investigate the matter, for perhaps he need not divorce her.”
b) Divorce is viewed as so tragic an option that “even the Altar sheds tears” at their divorce.
c) Even after a couple has divorced, it is a mitzvah for them to remarry if at all possible.
When the Internal Soul Connection Is Lacking
There are instances where once husband and wife have divorced they are forbidden to remarry.
For example, if the ex-husband or ex-wife married another and then once again divorced, they may not remarry their first spouse.9 Another example of being forbidden to remarry is when the husband divorced his wife because she was found guilty of unchastity.
How is this prohibition compatible with the fact that husband and wife share the same spiritual source and soul?
However, we have already explained earlier that for whatever reason, it is possible for a marriage to take place between two people who do not share the same soul. However, such a marriage is necessarily short-lived.
In a situation where they are prohibited from remarrying and each marries another party, we understand that husband and wife were lacking this intimate soul bond, for which reason the marriage lasted only a given amount of time and was then disbanded.
Writing a “Get” Emphasizes Unity
Most interestingly, many laws that apply to a bill of divorce, a get, stress the theme of unity:10
a) The get must be written on a single sheet, as our Sages say,11 “The verse states ‘a [single] document of divorce,’ and not two or three documents.”
b) In many ways, the get must be similar to a Sefer Torah. Thus, the lines of a get must be scored and its length must be greater than its width;12 it must contain twelve lines similar to the twelve lines of empty space that intervene between the Five Books of the Sefer Torah.13
Now, the Torah is a symbol of unity and peace, as our Sages say,14 “The entire Torah was given to make peace in the world.”
This leads to the following obvious and inevitable question:
The entire purpose of a get is to bring about separation and severance — it severs the relationship between husband and wife. It thus seems entirely paradoxical to write a bill of divorce and separation in a manner of a Sefer Torah, which signifies unity and oneness.
The question becomes even greater when we realize that certain marriage laws, the laws that unite husband and wife, are actually derived from divorce. From the verse,15 “She shall leave him and be someone else’s wife,” our Sages derive16 a similarity between divorce and marriage: “The form of the acquisition of marriage is likened to the acquisition of divorce.”
Why in the world would the Torah derive the laws of kiddushin, achieving closeness and oneness between husband and wife, from its very opposite, that of their divorcing each other?
This will be understood when we contemplate the essence of the relationship between husband and wife.
As mentioned above, the relationship between husband and wife existed even before they were married and even before they were born. In their source Above, in the world of souls, they are one entity, one soul.
Marriage or divorce can thus only engender a superficial change in their essential relationship. Divorce only changes their external relationship, but on a deeper level, they remain one spiritual essence for all time.
In order to emphasize this aspect of their connection, various aspects of connection and unity are symbolized in their get, teaching us that come what may, the divorced husband and wife still share an indelible spiritual bond.
The laws of kiddushin are derived from a get in order to stress that the connection between the man and woman are not dependent on their physical relationship. Even after they divorce, their spiritual unity remains intact.
“If One Bears a ‘Get’ From a Foreign Country”
The first mishnah of tractate Gittin states: “The bearer of a get from a husband in a foreign country (lit., ‘from across the sea’) ....”
This mishnah requires explanation.
This is truly an unusual opening for a tractate. The more conventional approach to tractate Gittin, the tractate that deals with all the issues of divorce, would be to start with the basic rules of divorce and of a get, such as, when a divorce is granted, how a get is written, how it should be delivered, and so on.
Instead, the tractate opens with a specific case rather than a general principle. Additionally, it concerns a peripheral issue and an unusual situation — what to do when the husband sends a get from abroad via a messenger.
Eretz Yisrael — The Soul Foreign Countries — The Body
By means of its unusual opening, the mishnah is instructing us about the very nature of divorce; that the separation and divorce of husband and wife results from the fact that the husband finds himself in a “foreign country.”
The authors of the Mishnah resided in Eretz Yisrael, and generally, when they would refer to a “foreign country,” they were referring to any country outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael. Additionally, they would often use the term “across the sea,” because the sea separated Eretz Yisrael from many other countries.
In spiritual terms, Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, refers to the spiritual state of sanctity and holiness, while a “foreign country” alludes to the non-spiritual state of the mundane.
A “sea of separation” exists between Eretz Yisrael and foreign countries. A sea is not easily traversed; it certainly is not swimmable. In order to cross the sea, one must travel by ship or plane and the like.
In spiritual terms, there are tremendous barriers between the sacred and the profane, barriers that cannot be traversed by means of one’s intellect, emotions or actions. A person needs the assistance of something outside of himself (a ship and the like), in order to depart from the “foreign and alien country” and arrive in the “Holy Land” of Torah and mitzvos.
In other words, man is by nature immersed in material matters, filled with physical desires and longings. As such, he finds himself in a “country” inherently “foreign” to the Jew. It is exceedingly difficult for him to leave this “country” and enter the “Holy Land” of Torah and mitzvos.
Additionally, Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, is indicative of the Divine soul, and the “foreign country” signifies the body. The spiritual “passport” necessary to travel from the land of the body to the land of the soul can sometimes be so extraordinarily difficult to obtain that man cannot traverse this vast spiritual distance on his own. His corporeal body is too far from his sacred soul.
It Is Impossible to Sever Ties With Your Own Self
This sad spiritual state is the source of the entire aspect of divorce. For:
a) He who knows that his spouse is part of his own essential spiritual being will understandably neither desire nor be capable of severing his relationship with his spouse. For just as a person cannot separate himself from his own self, so too, he does not desire nor is he capable of separating from part of his own soul.
The desire to separate and divorce can only come about when a couple is unaware of, or insensitive to, the spiritual dimension of their marriage and are only cognizant of its physical aspects.
If a couple looks upon their marriage as a mere physical partnership of convenience, then like any other partnership that becomes difficult, the partnership is dissolved and the former partners part company and go their own separate ways.
However, he who is aware that his marriage partner is truly part of himself — that they both form one soul — [will know that] even if there should prove to be difficulties, these difficulties will be surmounted so that their essential unity can be retained.
“He Found in Her A Matter of Immorality”
b) According to the Torah, a person must divorce his wife if he has found her guilty of unchastity, i.e., divorce must ensue when a marriage is violated by a heinous offense and transgression.
Such misconduct can only occur when the person is in a “foreign country,” i.e., he is distant from Eretz Yisrael, meaning that he lives only for his physical needs and there is a tremendously wide gulf between himself and his soul. In such circumstances, the body is drawn to misconduct and transgressions, and the holy soul finds itself incapable of preventing the person from transgressing.
Therefore, as an introduction to the laws of divorce, the Mishnah commences by speaking of a “foreign country,” teaching us that a get is only possible when the couple is unaware of their souls, when a vast sea separates their bodies from their souls.
Successful Marriage — An Enduring Relationship
Rambam writes:17 “A man should not marry a woman whom he plans to divorce. Neither should she have to remain with him and care for his needs if he plans to divorce her.”18
Married life needs to be solid and complete, where husband and wife share a life together that is replete with “love, friendship, harmony and fellowship.” The very fact that the husband is certain that he will divorce his wife in the future indicates that presently, too, there is something very wrong with the marriage. Such a marriage should not be continued, for it is essentially a sham.
A Flawed Marriage Is Rooted In a Flawed Character Trait
The above helps us understand a number of unusual points in the Rambam:
a) Why does Rambam twice cite the law, “A man should not marry a woman whom he plans to divorce,” once in Hilchos Gerushin and again in Hilchos Issurei Biah?
b) Why in the first instance does he state, “A man should notmarry a woman whom he plans to divorce,” while in the second instance he writes, “A man is prohibitedfrommarrying a woman whom he plans to divorce”?
c) In Hilchos Issurei Biah, Rambam cites the text:19 “Do not devise evil against your neighbor, one who lives securely near you,” as proof that when the wife thinks that matters are entirely in order between her and her husband, i.e., she “lives securely near you,” the husband is prohibited from “devising evil against” her by planning to divorce her.
However, in the law’s original source, in Hilchos Gerushin, Rambam makes no mention of this verse at all!
d) Rambam adds in Hilchos Issurei Biah, “If he notified her from the start that he is only marrying her for a set number of days, then this is permitted.”
This is mystifying indeed. Even when he notifies her from the start of his intentions to divorce her, the marriage is still essentially flawed and should never be permitted in these circumstances.
e) Why is the law, “If he notified her at the outset that he is only marrying her for a set number of days, then this is permitted,” cited only in Hilchos Issurei Biah and not in Hilchos Gerushin?
f) By stating that “he notified her from the start(i.e., before they were married) ... it is permitted,” it is obvious that telling her this in the midst of their marriage and continuing to live with her is prohibited.
The Flaw of a Temporary Marriage
There are two reasons why one may not live with a woman whom he is planning to divorce:
a) A flaw in the marriage:Married life should be as wholesome as possible, without blemishes and imperfections. If the person desires to divorce his wife, even if he only plans to do so in the future, this indicates that the present state of marriage is already seriously flawed, as explained above.
b) A flaw in one’s character and behavior:In this scenario, there are two objectionable traits and offensive behaviors in which the husband is engaging.
The first is that of acting deviously — his life with her is a lie. While she may think that they are living a normal married life, he is in fact planning to divorce her. This is the intent of the verse, “Do not devise evil against your neighbor.”
The second is the embarrassment and pain that one causes one’s spouse by the divorce. This is the intent of the second half of the verse, which states, “one who lives securely near you,” i.e., she lives securely, without being aware of the pain and embarrassment that the future divorce will cause her.
These two reasons are the basis of why Rambam twice cites the law of not marrying a woman one intends to divorce, once in Hilchos Gerushin and again in Hilchos Issurei Biah.
The consideration in Hilchos Gerushin has to do with inherent faults and flaws in a marriage that lead to divorce. There Rambam writes that “A person should not marry a woman whom he plans to divorce” because of the flaws in such a marriage. When even before he marries her he is certain that he is going to divorce her, there is something terribly wrong with such a marriage.
The consideration in Hilchos Issurei Biah is about the manner of living a married life as a couple, that there must be honesty between husband and wife and the husband should not act deceptively.
Rambam therefore repeats the law of the prohibition of living with his wife when he has already decided to divorce her in order to teach us that there is an additional prohibition here that stems from the ugly trait of deceit, as well as the pain and shame that he will be causing her by divorcing her.
In Hilchos Gerushin, the reason why Rambam states, “A person should notmarry a woman whom he plans to divorce,” while in Hilchos Issurei Biah he writes, “A person is prohibitedfrommarrying a woman whom he plans to divorce,” will be understood accordingly:
“A man should notmarry a woman whom he plans to divorce,” is offered more in the form of good advice; it is as if Rambam had written, “It is not a good idea at allto marry a woman whom he plans to divorce.”
However, the expression “A man is prohibitedfrommarrying a woman whom he plans to divorce” refers to the outright prohibition of doing so because of the embarrassment and pain that he will be causing her. It is forbidden to possess such ugly traits and it is absolutely forbidden to cause embarrassment and pain to another.
In Hilchos Gerushin, however, where the factor is that a marriage should be in the most complete state possible, the expression “A person should notmarry a woman whom he plans to divorce” is used. For here, the meaning is that it is not advisable that this condition exist in marriage, however, there is no Torah obligation that married life must be lived in complete peace and harmony, without faults and failings. It is merely that good advice and sound counsel is being offered: it is not worth marrying under such circumstances.
When He Gives Notice That the Marriage Is Only for a Limited Time
There is a difference between the above two reasons (a flawed marriage and an evil character trait) when the man informs his future wife prior to the marriage that his intention is only to marry her for a specific amount of time and then to divorce her.
In this instance, the aspect of an evil character trait does not exist. For he is not deceiving her about his intentions to divorce her, nor is he causing her embarrassment and pain, for she readily agreed to marry him for a limited period of time.
However, such a marriage is indeed flawed. The fact that the woman agrees to marriage under such conditions does not make the marriage any less flawed — the optimal state of marriage is where the thought of divorce is never even a consideration.
Thus, in Hilchos Gerushin, where Rambam writes about the state of marriage and divorce in general, he does not cite the instance of “If he notified her from the start that he is only marrying her for a set number of days, then this is permitted,” for such notification in no way rectifies the inherent flaw of such a marriage.
In Hilchos Issurei Biah, however, where Rambam addresses himself to the matter of revolting character traits, he states, “If he notified her from the start that he is only marrying her for a set number of days, then this is permitted,” for such notification assures that deception, pain and embarrassment will not occur.
