By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

No, the headline is not a Henny Youngman joke. Rather, it was the basis of a question that was posed recently to two outstanding gedolei ha’dor: Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein, shlita, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita. The issue was as follows:

There was a husband and wife who had one child, a girl. On account of an unspecified illness, the couple had to divorce. The ex-wife approached her single friend with a request.

“I know you well. I trust you. I am concerned for my daughter, and I know that you will take care of her very well, having her best interests in mind always. This is not always the case with other stepparents. Please, I beg you. Will you date my ex?”

Underlying Issues

The friend was concerned that if she did go ahead with this shidduch, her friend would eventually be upset with her. Although it seems that her concern would be the loss of friendship, there are also two other concerns. One concern is that going through with such a marriage could, in all probability, lead to a negation of the mitzvah of v’ahavta l’rei’acha kamocha. The second concern is that the marriage would actively cause her friend untold tza’ar, anguish. This might be a violation of lo sonu ish es amiso, a verse in Vayikra (25:17). The mitzvah is generally called “ona’as devarim” or just plain “ona’ah.” As an interesting aside, the Sfas Emes explains that the main reason behind this prohibition is so that we will all have a sense of complete oneness as a people. Causing another pain is prohibited because it causes division within us as a people.

The friend of the ex-wife posed a question to Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein, shlita. His tentative response was that although her hesitation was well-founded, there is an effective workaround. What is it? The ex-wife should put into writing her guarantee of not being angry at her friend rather than merely saying it to her orally.

Rav Zilberstein cited a Merkeves HaMishnah (Hilchos Geirushin 6:3) regarding the idea of a heter meah rabbanim for a woman whose psychological state is such that she is halachically incapable of receiving a get. He states that a messenger should be appointed to give her a get, and when she is healthy once again, he can give it to her. He is then able to marry someone else with a heter meah rabbanim.

Rabbi Yaakov Lorberbaum asks, “How it is possible that the shliach can give the get when even the husband himself would not have been able to give it to her?” He therefore questions the entire mechanism.

The answer, writes Rav Zilberstein, is that the messenger is appointed in writing. This author’s understanding of Rav Zilberstein is that the writing imbues the shliach with extra abilities. Indeed, there are many roshei yeshiva who have explained that a “writing” in a sense carries its own thought process, da’as.

Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein initially attempted to use this concept as a workaround for the woman. If the ex-wife gave it to her friend in writing, it could carry with it “its own da’as” in a sense. Later, even if the ex-wife changes her mind, her new thinking would be ineffective.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky’s Response

Rav Zilberstein presented the question and his solution to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, the Sar HaTorah. Rav Chaim, shlita, rejected the rationale. He stated that she should not date her friend’s ex-husband. The information contained here (aside from the author’s conjectures) is found in Vavei HaAmudim in the Kislev 5779 edition.

What was Rav Chaim’s rationale? On the one hand, it could be that he rejects the idea of writing carrying its own thought. Or it could be that he rejects the idea that the writing would do anything to remedy the pain of the first wife. There is a third possibility.

There is an interesting debate between Rav Henoch Leibowitz, zt’l, and Rav Chaim Shmulevitz, zt’l, in regard to the holy Biblical figures of Penina and Chana, the two wives of Elkanah. Penina had children, while Chana, at that point, did not. The Gemara in Bava Basra 16a states that Penina acted for the sake of Heaven when she made Chana cry about her lack of children.

Penina realized that the reason Hashem was withholding children from Chana was because she was not davening to Hashem with the requisite intensity. She took it upon herself l’shem Shamayim to help Chana intensify her prayers by teasing her that she had no children.

Rav Chaim Shmulevitz, zt’l, (Sichos Mussar) points out that the notion of “what goes around comes around” (or middah k’neged middah) regarding causing someone else pain does exist, even when the underlying intention of the offender is 100 percent proper. This is the import of the Gemara in Bava Basra.

It is kind of like the law of gravity. The item that is being thrown off the seventh story of a building will fall down no matter how innocent it may be. The same is true of causing someone pain. Rav Chaim Shmulevitz applies the same idea with Yaakov Avinu and Eisav. Yaakov certainly had perfect intentions in the matter of the berachos from Yitzchak. Yet the Midrash tells us that Yaakov Avinu’s descendent, Mordechai, let out the same loud and bitter scream that his great-great-great (etc.) Uncle Eisav did when he discovered he would not receive the berachos: “Vayitz’ak tza’akah gedolah u’marah.”

Rav Henoch Leibowitz, zt’l, on the other hand, held that it must be that Penina’s intention was 99.999 percent lishma, but there was a subtle, infinitesimally small trace of improper motivation in Penina’s actions. Regardless, we see how serious the issue of causing another pain actually is.

It very well could be that Rav Chaim Kanievsky held that it does not matter if the ex-wife put it in writing or not. At the end of the day, the friend can be causing her tremendous pain, and causing someone pain will create a middah k’neged middah in the world, and the friend might eventually suffer from it.

The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com. Read more of Rabbi Hoffman’s articles at 5TJT.com.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here