Letters of the Rambam: The Letter to Rav Pinchas Hadaya | Rabbi Yitzhak Breitowitz | May 12 2026

Uh, the last letter we were looking at is a very, very fascinating letter because it is a combination of some very personal comments along with some interesting halachic issues and some interesting structural issues regarding the composition of the Mishneh Torah. One of the things that makes the letters of the Rambam so interesting is precisely that mixture. You know, when I read the Mishneh Torah, so I'm getting the Rambam's thoughts, which are really the most important thing, but I don't get that much of his personality. Uh, in the letters, we have the mixture of the personal and the theoretical and the practical. And in this letter to Rav Pinchas ha-Dayan, uh, we actually see all of these different elements kind of mixed together in a very, very interesting way. Uh, just to remind you, uh, Rav Pinchas ha-Dayan was a member of the Bet Din of Alexandria, which is not the Rambam's city. The Rambam's city is Fustat, which was, uh, the Jewish part of the Jewish suburb of Cairo. Alexandria was a little bit of a distance, but essentially, you find many, many times that at least in the lifetime of the Rambam, Alexandria was a satellite. Essentially, the Rambam was their posek and they turned to the Rambam, uh, for for guidance. Now, interestingly enough, Rav Pinchas, uh, was an immigrant from Provence, from France. So, he actually was Ashkenazi and we don't we don't know exactly the circumstances, but he relocated to become, uh, the head of the Bet Din in Alexandria. And part of his discomfort and sometimes complaining was simply that it was difficult for him to integrate into a community that was very, very different than that which he was accustomed. And in fact, at various points, he actually tells the Rambam he wants to move back. He wants to, uh, go back to France. And the Rambam basically says, you know, "Listen, uh, it's better here. Uh, in France, you'll have a different Christian persecutions. Here, at least, things are relatively stable." And therefore, you might as well stay. The Rambam did encourage him to stay. But Rav Pinchas complains that he sends the Rambam a lot of shailos, and the Rambam doesn't answer. Uh, he complains that he's heard that the Rambam called him an am ha'aretz who doesn't know how to learn. And he doesn't know why that is so. And uh, the Rambam actually says, "Well, listen, I admire you. You're a chashuve talmid chacham. But, you know, if I get upset sometimes, even Hillel Hazaken would have gotten upset at some of the things you do." Remember Hillel Hazaken, the famous Hillel? Was very, very famous for the fact that he never lost his temper. He had a very, very calm temperament. Remember the Gemara in Shabbos gives all sorts of stories of people who tried to get Hillel angry, and Hillel did not get angry. In fact, one person bet a lot of money he can get Hillel angry. And he lost the bet. And, uh, after the last attempt to get Hillel angry, uh, the person said, "There you know, there should be no one like you, you know, you in the world." And he said, "Why?" He said, "Because you cost me 400 gold pieces and the like." So, the Rambam says that in some ways, Rav Pinchas's behavior was so, um, exhausting that even Hillel Hazaken would have gotten angry, etc. And the Rambam goes into different, different particular issues, uh, and and the like. Uh, but specifically, to go over some of the main interesting points, uh, is that, uh, one of the questions that, uh, Pinchas Rav Pinchas asked the Rambam was why the Rambam does not give sources in the Mishneh Torah. Again, this is a bit of a review, but this is a major issue that to this very day, to this very day, uh is still an issue in the study of the Rambam. Uh the Rambam gives you no makorot. The Rambam just gives you halakha. And uh starting with the earliest commentators, the Kesef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, they all give sources, but sometimes they'll say, "Don't know." And uh Rav Chaim Kanievsky, this in this generation, supplied some sources, uh but even he was not 100%. So, to this day, although obviously it's it's a smaller and smaller and smaller percentage, but there are still various corners of the Rambam in which there is still not exactly a a source. And the Rambam didn't give sources. Uh so, number one, where did he get it from? But number two, without having a source, you're not really in a position to evaluate the truth of his argument. If he would say, "I am relying on this source," so people can look at the source, and they could see, well, maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong. But if you don't give us a source, then how can I even evaluate uh whether uh what you're saying is true. And by the way, this argument it was made by the Raavad, Rav Avraham ben David. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Rav Avraham ben David, who himself was from Provence. Right? So, essentially uh this was the point. Give us the sources, so we can determine, of course the Raavad is very acerbic. The Raavad says, like, you know, "Just because you said something, that doesn't mean it's right. Tell me why you said it, and then we'll see if it's right." Okay, that's the way the Raavad typically talked. Rav Pinchas, although he exasperates the Rambam, was a little more diplomatic. He simply said, "We don't have the source." So, the Rambam actually issues a bit of an apology. Uh Uh, the Rambam says, "Well, listen, the whole purpose of my book was to simplify halakha so people can have a bottom line. If I were to simply reintroduce all the complexities of the Gemara, you already have the Gemara. I mean, what am I supposed to do? Uh, if you want me to give you my sources, I have to kind of go over the whole discussion. And the whole purpose of my book was for people who were not always able to follow all of these discussions to give them a bottom line." But, the Rambam did say that every Again, I have I apologize for reviewing a little bit, but it but it's been a while. The Rambam did say that every single statement in the Mishneh Torah comes from either the Talmud Bavli, you know, Mishnah and Gemara, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, uh, the Tosefta, which is kind of an appendix to the to the Mishnah, and then he mentions the Sifra, which is the halakhic midrash to Vayikra, and the Sifrei, which is the halakhic midrash to Bamidbar and Devarim. Both of them are called Sifrei. It is very, very interesting, and people don't have a clear answer to this, that the Rambam does not enumerate Mekhilta, [snorts] which is the halakhic midrash to the book of Shemot, and why he doesn't is very interesting. Is there some intimation that he did not regard the Mekhilta as a legitimate halakhic source? Uh, and if that's the case, why would that be so? The Mekhilta is from the Tannaim, just as the Sifra and the Sifrei. But, it is interesting that Mekhilta is a conspicuous omission in the Rambam's list. The Rambam then says, "Anything that is not based on those five sources, I will say it is from the Gaonim." Cuz the Rambam does rulings of the Gaonim of Babel, or he says if it's my chiddush, and the Rambam tried not to necessarily bring in his own chiddush, he will say "Yera li" or "Yera eli", it appears to me. And the Rambam says anything that is not directly sourced in those materials, I will indicate Gaon. Of course, telling me Gaonim doesn't tell me where it is. Gaonim have a little big literature, but at least I will tell you. But the Rambam says the following. Generally speaking, the sources I I I deal with are directly connected to the subject. So in Hilchos Shabbos, the Babylonian and Yerushalmi and Tosefta sources will be in Maseches Shabbos. Now, in truth, that doesn't help you so much if you don't have a page, but but let me let me just remind you of a very simple point. Before the advent of printing, Talmud could not be referred to by a page anyway. There was no pagination. So you had manuscripts. So the only thing you could you refer to is you could refer to it in a chapter. So perek, you could say this is in perek gimmel of Maseches Shabbos. This is perek dalet. You couldn't say daf ayin beis, daf sameach beis. There was no pagination. Right? There's no pagination in manuscripts. The first pagination, at least if they're not if they're scrolls. Most manuscripts were scrolls. Some were codexes, which are bound books. But even then, until printing, there was no standardization of pages. So the Rishonim commonly, I mean the in the modern editions of Rashba, Ritva, Ramban, they'll put pages in parentheses, but those are are even in Rashi in Gemara. But but those are later editions. The Rishonim, all of whom were before printing, they always refer to chapters. They don't refer to anything more specific than that. But the Rambam doesn't even give you the chapter, but the Rambam says, all right, listen, if you know Gamorah, you know, you'll be able to find it. But then the Rambam says he does regret that there are times in which a particular source was not in the tractate dealing with that matter. And the Rambam says I should have noted that. And he gives an interesting story where one of one of the dayanim in Cairo went over to him and showed him a certain halacha in the Mishneh Torah dealing with retzicha b'shogeg. Retzicha b'shogeg is accidental homicide where you go to the city of refuge. And the Rambam had a certain din about that. And he asked the Rambam, where is it? So the Rambam automatically answered, well, the second chapter of Maseches Makos deals with arei miklat. So I assume it's in the second chapter of Makos. So the dayan said, I checked. Not there. So the Rambam says, well, maybe it's in the Talmud Yerushalmi of the second chapter of Makos. Check. Not there. So the Rambam himself is fumbling. The Rambam says this. Says, well, maybe it's in the Tosefta of the second chapter of Makos. Not there. So the Rambam is kind of stuck. He doesn't know where it is. And then he starts So he told the person he'll look for it. He doesn't know where it is. The person left. And then the Rambam remembered it was an obscure reference in Yevamot, a tractate having nothing to do with the subject. Because the nature of Talmudic study, everybody knows this, is that a given halacha in any area might be embedded in a totally different discussion. So in Maseches Yevamot, there'll be laws about Shabbos. In Maseches Kiddushin, there'll be laws about Kashrus. That's the way it is. That's why in reality, you really cannot understand any area of halacha. You used to say it about secular law even. The law is a seamless web. Well, the Kal Vachomer, this applies to the Talmud. Uh you don't know anything unless you know everything. And the Rambam said that taught him that he regretted. He says what he should have done is he says that whenever a Halacha is derived from a source which is not its natural place, he should have noted that. So, he wasn't suggesting he was going to give sources for everything because most of it is in the right place, but he would give a source for anything that is not in its natural location because as he said, if even the author could not remember the source, how is the reader supposed to remember the source? So, in this he actually concedes through a Pinkas Sedan and the Rambam said he would like to write a companion volume so to speak which would supply these missing sources. As far as we know, he did not other than this particular interesting story, the Rambam did not give us any other type of of source. Although his son did, the Rambam's only only son. The Rambam may have had a daughter who died, but his only son was a Rav Avraham ben ha Rambam. And I won't say he was cursed because obviously it was a tremendous blessing, but but in a sense Rav Avraham ben ha Rambam does not always get the recognition that he deserves because of the phenomenal greatness of his father, but Rav Avraham ben ha Rambam was an extraordinarily great not only Talmid Chacham, but also religious philosopher. In fact, he has a very profound work on a religious philosophy called Hamaspik Le'Avodat Hashem, the book that is sufficient to know how to serve God. There's actually a very excellent English translation that's fairly uh recent. He was kind of a combination a little bit of almost a mystic a philosopher at the same time. A little a little different than his father uh in that uh in that way. But Avraham ben haRambam did see a lot of his life's work as defending his father. Not just writing his own things. So often uh in later correspondence, Avraham ben haRambam supplies many of the sources. After the Rambam's death, people would attack and say, "Where did the Rambam get this? And where did the Rambam get that?" And Avraham ben haRambam would often uh would often supply that. Yeah. Yeah. Um excuse my ignorance. Later uh codifiers, like the Bet Yosef or whatever, they did cite the sources? Well, the Bet Yosef Well, well, the Bet Yosef Bet Yosef No, well, the Shulchan Aruch does not cite sources, but but once again, the Shulchan Aruch is an abridgement of the huge Sefer Bet Yosef on the Torah. And the Bet Yosef is totally devoted to giving sources on everything. Um Bet Yosef is phenomenal. Bet Yosef um must have maybe half a million sources uh in the course of his book. So, the Shulchan Aruch per se does not cite sources, but again, it's all based on the Bet Yosef. But in the Shulchan Aruch, there are later works, like the Be'er Hagolah, Be'er Hagrah, that give sources. By the way, um a little thing Those of Those of you who learn Shulchan Aruch and for most people, it would be in the context of the Mishna Berurah. The Mishna Berurah of the Chafetz Chaim is a commentary on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, the first volume of the Shulchan Aruch that deals with tefillah, Shabbat, Yom Tov, and the like. So, if you look if you ever looked at a Mishna Berurah, so you look at the top of the page, not the Mishna Berurah himself, but the So, the block letters is how the Shulchan Aruch is printed, Rabbi Yosef Caro. And And there's Rashi script interspersed with the block letters and that is Rav Moshe Rav Moshe Isserles of Krakow who added comments to the Shulchan Aruch because the Shulchan Aruch of Yosef Caro typically is Sefardi and he follows again that's an interesting rule. Yosef Caro had kind of a rule of psak in which he identified three Rishonim and he went with his two out of three rule. Uh the three Rishonim that he identified as preeminent was Rif Rambam and Rabbeinu Asher the Rosh and he went with two out of three. But the problem is that is stacking the deck because Rif and Rambam are Sefardi and they're almost always the same. The Rosh represents Ashkenazi and he's always the odd man out. Oh I mean when I say always I mean like 95% of the time. So essentially that is why Ashkenazi psak got excluded from Rav Yosef Caro simply because of his two out of three rule. So Rav Moshe Isserles the Rav of Krakow whose yahrzeit by the way was Lag BaOmer uh the Rama died as a young man. He was uh I think 48. He was not yet 50 when he was niftar. A phenomenal uh he wrote the Ashkenazic comments to the Shulchan Aruch. So commonly therefore again this is a generalization Sefardim will tend to follow Rav Yosef Caro and Ashkenazim will follow Rama. Rav Ahron Yosef likes to quote the pasuk as a joke which says says by Kriat Yam Suf Bnei Yisrael yotzim beyad Rama. The Jewish people left with a high hand. So he says if you put in an aleph they follow the Rama. Um okay. Uh but what's interesting is in the Shulchan Aruch of Yosef Caro there are no sources that are given. You can get them from the Beit Yosef, but there are commentaries. There's like a footnote number, and you look at Be'er Hagolah, etc. So, you'll get the sources. But, in the Ramah, you will see parentheses. And the parentheses will indicate sources. So, some people mistakenly think that the Ramah does provide sources within the hagahot. That is actually not true. The parentheses in the Ramah are not from the Ramah. They were added by editors and printers later. So, the Ramah does not give you sources, either. Uh but, he had a companion work similar to the Beit Yosef called Darkhei Moshe on the Torah, where he gives you sources. The reason why this is important, this is not just a trivial bibliographical point, is that sometimes the paren- parenthetical sources added in the Ramah are actually not accurate. And uh part of that is so because they are not the Ramah's own sources. They were the hypothesis of an editor who thought that was the Ramah's source, but sometimes that source does not support what the Ramah is saying. The Ramah had a had a different source. So, it's important to kind of know these things. And in the newer, it's really phenomenal, the the the quality of the new editions, I mean, if you follow this, the new editions of sefarim that come out are really so so beautiful. New editions of Shulchan Aruch, new editions of Torah. They're not just pretty, but they they they have all of this correction of information and the like. I mean, even in the Beit Yosef, as I say, the Beit Yosef [clears throat] may have a half a million, maybe more, it makorot, but in the course of time, a lot of them are off. Or the Beit Yosef did not give you dafim to different sefarim and the like. And these new tours, I mean, some group of people had to go through line by line by line by line to supply actual page references to all of these sources. Now, that may be a very that may be from the perspective of the worker, that may be extremely tedious work. It may not necessarily be the most interesting work, but it is extremely extremely valuable uh for the learning of halacha. The Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah, I don't know who provided those. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, the Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah, which was the first uh hyperlinking pre-internet, uh there was an Italian Rishon, yeah, Rav Yehoshua Boaz, who supplied a lot of the editorial features. For example, the Torah Or, that tells you where a pasuk is found. He did that. Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah, which gives you the citations to the Rambam and to the Shulchan Aruch and the Torah, he supplied. But the only thing is the only thing is it was augmented many many times by subsequent editors. So, in reality, uh his original work was only around 1/3 the size of the work that that we have now. So, he lived in the the 1300s. Uh but as the Shas and different Shas were were printed, so one of the improvements was the augmentation. That's why if you look at the Ein Mishpat, you'll often see citations in brackets. Tho- those means those are additions, meaning meaning the thing that's not bracketed was the original, and then there'll be brackets of additional work, and you'll see that there's quite a few brackets that were added. And even today, new things are being added in the Oz Vehadar Shas, there are new things that are that are being added, augmenting uh the Ein Mishpat uh and and and the like. Okay. Uh but be that as it may, it's fascinating that the Rambam himself concedes that he was not able to initially remember a source for his halakha uh, because it was not in obvious place. Right? This is a big problem. Uh, it reminds me a little bit of the Chazon Ish. Of course, this was a different issue. Uh, the Chazon Ish is a is again a very very deep and complicated safer. The Chazon Ish says there are times he does not understand what he wrote. He says uh, he says [laughter] uh, he's not exactly at that same level of understanding and he can't he cannot follow uh, his own argument. It can happen, right? I mean, it's hap- it's happened to me uh, different times uh, as as well. So, that was uh, one of the first points [snorts] the Rambam addresses. Then, the Rambam raises a question. Again, forgive me for reviewing. The Rambam raises the interesting issue of Takkanat Ezra. Let me talk about this a little bit because it's somewhat relevant even to halakha. D'oraita, under Torah law, a person that's in a state of tumah, whether I went to to a cemetery or or even had a seminal emission, or a woman is a niddah, there is no restriction on learning Torah and davening. Right? Person's tamei. I learn Torah, I daven, I count for a minyan, I go to shul. Man or woman. Yeah, there is in Kabbalah a later idea that a woman in a niddah should not look at a sefer Torah. But even that doesn't stop go- from going to shul or whatever it is. And this is expressed in the saying, Ein divrei Torah [clears throat] mekablin tumah. Torah is not susceptible to impurity. However, there was a takkanah [clears throat] that is very early. It was made by none other than Ezra at the time of the beginning of the second temple, uh in which Ezra was metaken that a man that is a ba'al keri, a man that has had a seminal emission, should not learn Torah, say brachos, or daven until they go to a mikvah. Now, a ba'al keri, the word seminal emission, can either be a seminal emission or even having intercourse. There's it's not we're not differentiating those two situations. But uh again, this is a takanah that the Torah says there's no problem, but the takanah of Ezra is a ba'al keri cannot say brachos, daven, or learn until he goes to the mikvah. This is takanas Ezra. Now, the Gemara in the third chapter of maseches maseches brachos discusses takanas Ezra in great detail, but it concludes, interestingly enough, batla takanas Ezra. That in the course of time, the takanas Ezra was no longer considered to be mandatory, either because it was hard to find a mikvah, it was too much of a hardship. Be it as it may, the halacha today is batla takanas Ezra. However, in the time of the Rishonim, there were many who took the position that it was better to be machmir and not to learn Torah until you went to the mikvah. So, the Rambam, in the Mishneh Torah, follows the halacha of the Gemara in brachos, that the takanah of Ezra is nullified, and therefore, even if a man is a ba'al keri, either through intercourse or otherwise, they can learn Torah. So, apparently, in Provence, they were critical of this psak of the Rambam, and Rav Pinchas HaDayan says that uh I'm sorry I'm sorry, not in France in Alexandria in Alexandria rather they were very very critical of this and they went to a pinchas and they said what type of guy is this Rambam who is permitting all of these prohibitions and Rapinchuk writes to the Rambam everybody came to me all the people came to somebody and they complained so the Rambam said you know I think you're exaggerating it did everybody come were they tell me they remember were they a Muslim are you kind of being a rabble-rouser by encouraging them to raise these issues and then the Rambam made the interesting point that why are you complaining where you came from in Provence nobody kept the Ezra see what's interesting is there's a bit of a cross cross-cultural thing here because the the Gamora suck was the of Ezra was butter the Jews who lived in Christian countries simply followed that rule but many of the Jews who lived in Islamic countries continued to watch themselves because that was the practice of Muslims so the Rambam is saying to Rapinchuk why are you complaining about the of the Ezra you yourself come from a place where nobody was keeping it and the Rambam says a lot of the people who keep it here are doing it only because they're imitating Muslims and it's not the law here but then the Rambam himself says that I myself have always been personally even though I hold it's not required so it's an interesting issue and now the Ezra does have a certain meaning in see the Gamora actually says that in lieu of a mikvah if you pour have poured on yourself a certain measure of water from a a shower, even though that is not a valid mikvah for nida or for any type of tumah, it would be sufficient for takanas Ezra. So, based on this, there are some people some men that have for halachic reasons halachic reasons have the practice of taking a shower before davening. Not just Huh? Nine kavim. That's correct. Uh because that way they could be yotzei takanas Ezra. This may also be partially the source of why some chassidim go to the mikvah before davening because of takanas Ezra, although there are kabbalistic reasons which are beyond takanas Ezra. Uh but as I say, even a shower nine kavim would be sufficient for takanas Ezra. But these are chumras. As meikar hadin, we pasken batla takanas Ezra. And the Rambam says, you can't accuse me of doing something wrong if I am codifying the halacha of the Gemara even though I myself personally am machmir. The Rambam says he himself was personally machmir on takanas Ezra except when he was very sick and he couldn't you know, he might get a cold, he might get sick by exposure to cold water and and and the like. So, that's an interesting discussion. Uh again, it it opens up it opens up a fascinating issue which may be a little controversial and that is to what extent does Jewish religious practice reflect what non-Jewish practices are. Uh I'll give you another example. I'm just throwing this out. I I'm not saying it as an assertion. The idea of Rabbeinu Gershom in the uh the 11th century banned, he and his base din, banned male polygamy, that a man cannot have more than one wife. And Rabbeinu Gershom's jurisdiction only extends to Ashkenazi countries and not Sephardic countries. And therefore, Sephardim me 'ikar din were permitted to have more than one wife. Now, it's interesting that in 1948 upon the establishment of the state of Israel there was a chozeh, there was an agreement between the Rav Harashi, the Ashkenazi Rav Harashi, who was Rav Herzog. Like Rav Kook was pre-medina, but Rav Herzog was the first Rav Harashi, the the namesake of the president, Yitzhak Herzog. And the Sephardic Chief Rabbi who was Rav Uziel and they agreed to certain standardizations of practice. So, one of their standardizations was Sephardim gave up polygamy except for grandfathered people who came came with two wives, some old Yemenites. And Sephardim also gave up yibbum. You know, Ashkenazim do not practice yibbum. If a man dies without children we even if they both want to marry we do not allow yibbum, we only allow chalitza, the removal of the shoe. Sephardim do allow yibbum, but they gave up yibbum. So, this was a 1948 chozeh where Sephardim from a kabbal the cheirem of Rabbeinu Gershom. Uh but back in the '70s, when Rav Ovadia Yosef was the Sephardic Rav Harashi he claimed Rav Uziel did not have the right to surrender the halachic prerogatives of Sephardim. And he made his point. Rav Ovadia was a brilliant talmid chacham, but also a very astute politician with Shas and the like. And he said, "How come when it's typical how come whenever you have Ashkenazim and Sephardim making Jose, it's always the Sephardim giving up something like what did the Ashkenazim, you know, surrender and the like?" And he said that Rabbeinu Gershom even as Rav Gershom did not have the right to surrender. So, Rav Ovadia said Sephardim can practice even. Now, I don't think he said polygamy because that's against the law of the state of Israel. So, he didn't but but I think the logic of his remarks would be even polygamy would be permitted as as well. But be that as it may, some historians have suggested that Muslims did practice polygamy, Christians did not. So, as a result, part of what motivated Rabbeinu Gershom was that for the Jewish people to engage in a practice that the Christians regarded as immoral would have been a chillul Hashem. As opposed to Islamic countries, polygamy was acceptable practice. It would not be a chillul. Now, again, I am not saying this as as a fact, but it is a speculation that the Christian versus Muslim practice may have been a factor in the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. And the Rambam suggests that the chumras of many people, not himself, he was being machmir because he wanted to be machmir, but the obsession that some people had with washing themselves was more of an Islamic borrowing than it was than it was based on halakha. Okay. Now, he then gets into a whole bunch of things and again it's a little unfortunate that he refers to like personal stories and he doesn't really give us the detail and even the annotators of the letters don't give us the detail, but apparently there was kind of a nasty divorce that the Rambam was involved in where where refused to give a get or a man was arguing about property, and um this was the occasion where when where Pinchas says to the Rambam, "Did you accuse me of being ignorant? Did you say I was an am ha'aretz? Did you say I don't know how to pasken?" So, the Rambam said, "Well, not not really. But, I all I said was that when it came to practical adjudication of halakha, uh people from Provence just did don't have the experience that we have here uh in Egypt, simply because Christians did not give Jewish communities judicial autonomy over lawsuits. So, therefore, you're more familiar with kashrut laws and the like, and you're not familiar with the adjudication of money, but he says, "Don't feel bad, you know, just like we're not so familiar with korbanot >> [snorts] >> or beit hamikdash, because we don't have the experience, so you're not so familiar with monetary adjudications and the like. But, I didn't say you were ignorant, I just said that [clears throat] you may have may perhaps you lack some familiarity in the practical psak halakhot." The Rambam was trying to be relatively uh gentle uh gentle there, but the the the particular monetary issue is an interesting issue, actually. >> [snorts] >> And that is uh when a woman gets married, so it used to be, so I mean, maybe still today, too, but depends on the circumstance, a woman brings a dowry into the marriage. Okay? Could be a big dowry, could be a small dowry. But, according to the law of the Gemara, there are two different forms the dowry can take. One is called niksei melog, and the other is called niksei tson barzel. Now, these are Both of these are strange terms. Niksei melog [snorts] means property that is plucked. To be molek is to pluck the feathers off a chicken. Nichsei tson barzel means property which are iron sheep. Now, what's the difference? Nichsei Melug basically means the property that she brings in belongs to her, but the husband gets the peyros. So, let's say she brings in a field. If she brings in a field that's Nichsei Melug, the field is her property. The husband cannot sell it or the like, but the husband has the right to the produce for the duration of the marriage. And at the end of the marriage, when he dies or if he divorces her, she gets the field. And it makes no difference if the field appreciates or the field depreciates. And this can apply to a whole bunch of things. She owns an apartment or an apartment building. If she brings it in as Nichsei Melug, the husband has the right to the rental income. But she owns that building. And at the end of when he dies or whatever, she owns that building. Or a bank account. He cannot withdraw money from the bank account. I mean, he would withdraw the principal, but he would be entitled to the interest. This is called Nichsei Melug. Do you understand the idea? He gets to pluck it, but she owns the chicken. Now, Nichsei Melug means she gets the benefit of appreciation, but she bears the risk of depreciation. And indeed, if the property gets destroyed, she gets nothing at all. Yeah. Then if he dies, then the children would get the income? No. No. No. No. The The right of peiros is not an inheritable right. So, when he dies, it terminates and she gets she owns everything at that point. Okay, it is not it does not go to the ocean. Now, nichsei tzon barzel is the opposite. She brings in the dowry and it actually becomes the absolute property of the husband. But, the husband has a commitment to reimburse her at the full value as of the date that she brought it in. Which means, in other words, >> [snorts] >> she is guaranteed, upon his death, and this is in addition to the ketubah. She is guaranteed, upon his death, a right to be paid the value of the property that on the day that she brought it in. And this is called iron sheep because it's like a sheep that doesn't die, meaning it's a guaranteed reimbursement. But, that does mean that does mean that she does not get the benefit of appreciation, nor does she suffer the risk of depreciation or destruction. So, these are two different There are other ways, too, but these are two basic ways the Gemara recognizes a woman can bring a dowry into a marriage. Now, which way will be done depends on the woman and her father. The husband doesn't decide. The woman, really her father normally, they decide should this be a nichsei tzon barzel arrangement or should it be a nichsei melog arrangement? You see that there's benefits and and disadvantages to each system. Nichsei melog gives her the benefit of but the risks of destruction and uh depreciation. Nichsei on barzel gives her a guaranteed return of the value of the property uh but she loses the benefits of the appreciation if it goes up. All right, so if she brought in an apartment building that generates rental income and at the time that she brought it into the marriage it was worth a million dollars but in the lifetime of the husband it appreciated to five million dollars. Upon his death or he divorces her if that's the case, she is entitled to a guaranteed million dollars but she does not get the benefit of the four million dollar appreciation and that will go to the auction, that will go to the heirs of the Now again, all of this can be changed by wills and other other things that and I'm not suggesting this is the only possible arrangement. In fact, it may sound very strange to you. This is normally not the arrangement. But in the absence of Jose and wills and other types of documents these are the two types of dowry regulations. By the way um not in the Rambam's time but in later in Ashkenazi communities there was a major concern about uh dowries uh because in those days people died relatively young and uh particularly women would die in childbirth uh and the like. So, there was a major major concern. What is the I I've been discussing malog and tson barzel when the husband dies. But let's look at it when the wife dies. When the wife dies, it makes no difference if it's tson barzel or malog, husband gets it. Right? A husband inherits his wife. So, there was a real concern that some people have is a woman brings in a million dollars or whatever the currency is, million dollars of dowry, she dies 3 months later. So, the husband, you know, gets everything, even though the marriage was a very short duration. So, according to the Rambam, that's the way the halakha is. The Rambam had does not recognize any modification to the basic rule. Even if they're married for 1 day, husband inherits whatever she owns. But, the Rishonim in France and Germany were very concerned with the unfairness. So, they actually created takanot, which are like sliding scales. Meaning to say, the amount that the husband inherits depends on the duration of the marriage. So, they would say something like, I don't remember the exact numbers, but it varied from place to place, but it would be something like, um, if they're married for less than a year, husband only gets 20% of her dowry upon her death, the rest goes back to her father. Uh, if it's 1 year to 5 years, it goes up to 50%. In other words, there was a notion that a dowry had to be refunded uh, if the marriage until the marriage reached, I think, 5 years. You know, it vested after 5 years at a hundred at a hundred percent. That's very, very interesting. Uh, but these are takanot. This is not the law of the Talmud, and the Rambam did not either hear of these takanot or the Rambam did not recognize them. The Rambam simply follows, uh, the law. Okay. But, going back to the scenario of the husband dying, we have the distinction between nichsei melug and nichsei tson barzel. So, here is Rav Pinchas's I don't want to say mistake, it's not for me to say, but that what the Rambam regarded as egregious error. There was this husband who accepted a dowry as nichsei tson barzel, uh, which basically means he does get the benefit of appreciation. But the property depreciated. So it was his position that as long as he gives her back the property, she can't complain. Meaning her right to a guaranteed return is only if the property is destroyed, but not if it's in. So his position was, I'll give her back what she brought in. What is she complaining about? And Rabbeinu Tam says, "Ah, that's okay. That makes sense." And the Rambam says, "No, no, no, no, no. You're forgetting the whole difference between say Malog and say zone barzel. Say zone barzel, uh if the property depreciates, that is the husband's problem. And the fact that it's See, he was trying to say, "Well, if the property gets destroyed, I get it. The husband has to pay. But if the property is here, why can't he just give it back?" Rambam says, "No. She has the right to demand full monetary compensation." And then he said, "But I understand that you didn't have experience adjudicating these cases, so I'm not so I'm not so rough on you." Okay. Uh so that was that issue. And again, uh as I say, it's uh it's should be part of your general knowledge to be aware of Malog and zone barzel and the like. Okay. Um the fancy legal term for those who want a fancy English legal term is uh she owns the principal and the husband gets the usufruct. The usufruct means that literally fruit payos actually, he gets the use of the income or the payos that are generated from that principal. Yeah. >> That's a lot of money today because let's say she brings a million dollars, but now a million dollars is not worth anything more. Yeah, well, I obviously obviously a a major issue is going to be currency rates and currency exchanges and how do you compute that? Uh by the way, it is very very fascinating that um the shkalim are actually suffering now because we have on some on some level the shkalim a strong shekel comparatively weak dollar. Uh that actually means that a a dollar converts to less shkalim. Now, that's good for someone who has shkalim, but when you have yeshivas that are getting money in dollars and they have to turn it into shkalim they're actually getting much less. I I saw an article from someone who who runs the fundraising of a yeshiva. Uh he said it's costing them right now a half a million dollar loss per year just because of the conversion conversion rate. So, it's interesting that sometimes things which are an advantage in one part of our lives turn out to be a very very serious disadvantage. I mean, people don't even think of that, but the truth is a dollar is worth much less in Israel uh right right right now. Um okay. I mean, this was a problem that South Africa has had for a long time, but now even even the even you know, the United States is facing this uh facing this issue. Okay. Now, a second issue and again, these some of these are technical issues, so I'm kind of almost using this as a halakhic shiur. Our a very very thin and I'll just introduce it cuz I'll I'll cover it next week. Uh is the law of tenai. Now, this is a fascinating area of halakha. The word tenai means condition. And all of this goes back to the end of the book of Bamidbar. After the Jewish people waged war against Sihon Melech Emori and Og Melech Bashan east of the Jordan so they conquered a lot of territory east of the Arden, which are not within the Halakhic boundaries of Eretz Israel. And we have the famous case of two tribes. It was not initially two and a half, two tribes, Reuben and Gad, who had a lot of cattle, and this was very fertile pasture land. And they basically said to Moshe, "Hey, we would love to settle here because this is good land for our pastures, for our flocks." And Moshe gave them a tremendously harsh mussar shmooze, which may be highly relevant to the army situation today. I don't want to get into the politics, but Moshe Rabbeinu says, "Your brethren are going to cross the Arden and go to war. And you're going to be here? You're going to be easy? We conquered this land, and you're going to get the benefit of what we did. And they're going to go out and fight. How can that be?" Rav Luchshtein as if when I would have used to always use these pesukim as the philosophical basis of Hester. I mean, he would use these pesukim very, very, very often to the need to share the burden in Am Yisrael. Okay, but I don't want I don't want to get into that particular issue. Uh but I want to get into it for a Well, it's a side point vis-a-vis this, but it's the it's the point the Rambam talks about, and that is they then promised Moshe Rabbeinu that they will leave their wives and children and flocks east of the Jordan, and they will go and fight with Bnei Yisrael. And indeed, they kept that promise. There's even a perek at the end of Sefer Yehoshua, after seven years of fighting, there's a whole ceremony of honorable discharge, like a military ceremony, in where Yehoshua recognizes that they fulfilled their responsibility, and they are now able to go back to their homes. So they did fulfill their responsibility, but in the Torah Moshe Rabbeinu said the following. Moshe Rabbeinu made a condition. We I am giving you this land on the condition that you go and you participate and you fight. And if you don't go and participate and you fight the conveyance to you is null and void. It's interesting what would happen. It's an interesting question. So what would then happen? Apparently the land would be divided among all the tribes. Just would have been appended to Eretz Yisrael. So this was a conveyance on a condition. And from this act the Halakha derives a huge concept that all transactions may be made subject to conditions. I can I sell you my house on the condition that I make Aliyah within 6 months. Or I sell you my house on the condition I mean this is common in every contract that you get a mortgage. Now within a month. This is called tenai. And the way tenai works is if the tenai is mukuyam the transaction is valid. If the tenai is not mukuyam the transaction is null and void. And how do we know Halakhically transactions can be made on conditions? We know it from Bnei Gad u'vnei Reuven. Okay, so that's that's actually the source. I I know that people read it their their their mind probably [clears throat] gravitates to hester issues because that's so relevant on the news today. But beside the Gamara, the Gamara uses the story of Ben Ego and Ben Reuben to illustrate the halachot of tanai. Now, tanai can obviously be used for conveyance of property. But do you know you can even do marriage and divorce on tanai. There are a number of mishnayot in kiddushin. A man marries a woman says, "I am marrying you on the condition what could either be I'm a kohen or you're a kohenet or whatever it would be. And what that actually means is if the condition is not fulfilled, there's no marriage. You don't need a get. In fact, maybe I'll I'll I'll let's discuss this next week. This has been suggested as a potential solution for agunot problems. Agunah is the problem of a woman whose husband refuses to give her a get. Well, how about this? How about under the chuppah when he marries his wife, he says the following. Hare at mikudeshet li betabatu kidat Moshe veYisrael. The whole sentence you are betrothed to me in accordance with with this ring in accordance with the laws of Moshe Moshe and Yisrael on the condition that if you ever demand a get, I will give you a get within 30 days. If you ever Now, what How will that help an agunah? That will help an agunah because if the husband does not give her a get after demand within 30 days, they were never married. Do a kiddushin on a condition. Even if the condition will not be determined until 50 years later, it will retroactively annul the marriage. So, some have actually suggested let's make Today, we don't do conditional marriage. It would be too complicated, but theoretically, it can be done. There are numerous Mishnayots which talk about conditional marriages. And could this be a solution for the agunah? I don't want to leave you with the with the assumption that it can be. The bottom line is it cannot be. But I'll discuss next week briefly why this is not a solution. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. A woman can make the same A woman can make her own conditions. A woman can say I accept marriage on the condition that you get a job. Uh That's a big one. Yeah. Well, that's what they say. They There's a joke, you know, why I shouldn't say jokes about Yeshiva I'm making jokes about my own, so I think it's okay. Why many Yeshiva don't learn Tanakh. They're scared off by the book of Job. But anyway, but I'm okay. Uh yeah. Anyway, but but but so again, the reason I'm bringing up tenaim is because the Rambam in this interesting letter has a very interesting discussion of tenaim. So, I need to give you some background just to understand his very brief discussion. We'll continue this next week and we'll see what the Rambam does.