English translation — תצא ג

A.

From the verses in our parshah¹

"When a man takes a woman and marries her etc. and she goes out etc. and she becomes" one learns²

that "a woman is acquired by money, by document, and by intercourse."

Money is learned from "When a man takes a woman"³

; from "and marries her"⁴

one learns that she is acquired by intercourse; and document is derived from "and she goes out and she becomes — he juxtaposes her becoming to this one to her going out from that one: just as her going out from that one is by document, so too her becoming to this one is by document."

Although a woman can become betrothed through any of the "three ways,"

nevertheless "it is the custom of all Israel to betroth with money or the equivalent of money"⁵.

And it can be said that this corresponds to the fact that betrothal by money is the first acquisition that is stated — learned from the verse,

"When a man takes"⁶.

Since all matters of Torah

are in ultimate precision,

one sees indeed that in kiddushei kesef the general content and concept of kiddushin is expressed

(more than in kiddushei shtar and biah),

as follows.

2.

In the Gemara⁷

there is yet another teaching that a woman is acquired with money - from "she shall go out for nothing, without money"⁸,

without money for this master, but there is money for another master

(when she goes out from him⁹)

and who is it? The father¹⁰.

And one can say that in the definition of betrothal with money there is a distinction,

whether we learn it from "when a man takes a woman" in our parshah,

or from "she shall go out for nothing, without money"¹¹

And to preface,

Regarding kiddushei kesef, the Rogatchover clarifies¹²

: “If the cause is the acquisition and through this she becomes betrothed, or the op-

posite: the cause is the betrothal and through this she acquires the object”¹³

- I.e.

: Whether the betrothal takes effect through that she acquires the money,

or conversely: through that she becomes betrothed, she acquires the money.

And he brings proofs on both ways:

The law¹⁴

is that "if she was standing in the public domain and he threw it close to her, she is divorced etc. <b>and likewise regarding betrothal</b>",

and "according to the method of the early authorities"¹⁵

the law is likewise regarding <b>money</b> of betrothal.

And superficially,

since she has not yet acquired the money

(because it is not speaking

(specifically)

that the money fell into her four cubits)¹⁶,

how then does she become betrothed?

From this is a proof,

that "the cause is the betrothal, and through this she acquires the object"

(she acquires the money through that which she becomes betrothed)¹⁷.

On the other hand, he also brings a proof to the first manner

(that the cause is the acquisition)¹⁸

The Gemara¹⁹

says that regarding betrothal, within the time of speech is not considered as speech, and one cannot have regret from the betrothal

(even within the time of speech).

Explains the Rashbam²⁰

: "That if he betrothed a woman in front of witnesses and retracted and said within the time of speech, 'Let it be a gift and not a betrothal,'

we do not listen to him, and she is betrothed and not betrothed."

It is not understandable: why does the Rashbam describe a case where he says "let it be a gift"

(and not let it be kiddushin)

" and not literally,

that he completely retracts from the giving of the money and takes back the money from the woman?

From this itself

is a proof,

that in such a case he can have regret.

Because since that in general

(except by kiddushin)

is "the halakha: all within the time of speech is considered as speech"

he can therefore have regret from the giving and acquisition of the money if he retracts within the time of speech

(and consequently she is not betrothed)

; because from the acquisition of the money one can retract within the time of speech;

Specifically when his regret is not from the envy of the money,

but only from the kiddushin

(and in the ownership of this money he makes no change - it is the wife's as a gift),

is the law that we do not listen

to him,

because from &lt;b&gt;kiddushin&lt;/b&gt; one cannot retract even within the time of speech.

And from this is a proof that "the cause is the acquisition",

because if one will say that "the cause is the betrothal and through this he acquires the object",

one can explain the Gemara according to its simple meaning,

that he wants to have regret also from the giving of the money,

and nevertheless "we do not listen to him - because since the transfer of the money comes as a result of the betrothal,

and from betrothal one cannot retract within the time of speech,

he can consequently also not have regret from the transfer of money

(which comes as a result of the betrothal).

Specifically when one learns that "the cause is the acquisition" - then the betrothal begins with the transfer of the money and he would therefore have been able to retract as from any acquisition of money - therefore the Rashbam must learn²²,

that here it is speaking that he does not have regret from the transfer of the money

(and his changing of the money of betrothal into "money as a gift" is not a retraction in ownership of the money),

but only from the betrothal

(and the money is a gift)²³.

3.

And one must say that this is the difference

between the two teachings from where one derives money for betrothal — whether from "ki yikach" or from "veyatz'ah chinam ein kesef":

In the verse "For a man takes a wife" the emphasis is on the action of <b>the man</b>.

In contrast, in "There is no money for this master but there is money for another master" the emphasis is on that the "master"

(the father,

who is in place of

(his daughter)

<b>the woman</b>)

receives the money.

And therefore,

if one learns the laws of betrothal through money from "For a man takes a wife" — it is plausible to say,

that the betrothal is effected through the action of <b>giving</b> the money by the <b>husband</b> — "For a man takes"

(the betrothal)

causes that the woman should acquire the money]²⁴.

But not according to the study of "there is money for another master"²⁵

- it is plausible,

that

(the <b>giving</b> of the money by the husband is not sufficient that she should become sanctified,

and)

the betrothal takes place specifically through that which there is money

(ownership of the money)

- the woman acquires

(receives)

the money.

4.

All matters of the revealed aspect of the Torah become channeled down from their essence in the inner dimension of the Torah.

And accordingly it is understood in our matter:

It is known²⁶

the inner explanation of

"The woman is acquired to her husband"²⁷,

that this means the matter of the betrothal and unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His congregation

(and this is accomplished through the three matters of money, document, and sexual intercourse²⁸).

And just as in the betrothals below between a man and a woman there are these two matters²⁹

: that which the woman is acquired to her husband and that which she is forbidden to others,

so too are there two matters in the betrothals³⁰

between the Most High and Jews: the attachment of Jews to the Most High,

and their separation and distinction from a concealment and hiding to that,

from the matters of the world — holy and separated from the lusts of this world.

And just as in the betrothal below both matters are connected together,

one cannot separate one from the other — so too is it in the betrothal between Jews and the Most High,

that both matters must be,

as it is said in Chovos HaLevavos³¹

: "It is impossible for us that the love of the Creator be settled in our heart while the love of the world is settled in us."

5.

Based on the above, the inner reason will be understood why the custom of Israel is to betroth specifically with

(acquisition)

silver — because the inner matter of betrothal,

the unity and attachment of Jews with the Most High is connected

(primarily)

with the aspect of "silver" — from the term "I have yearned, I have longed" — the service of love³²,

That the main point of it is to open up the connection and attachment to G-dliness,

"There is no worship like the worship of love"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this one will also understand the inner content in the two opinions mentioned above regarding the matter of the money of betrothal - whether "the coin is the acquisition" or "the cause is the betrothal" - and that "these and those are words of the living G-d&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

They are both present here in the inner aspect of the matters

(at least)

The acquisition of <b>the money</b>

(love)

alludes to the unity and attachment of a Jew with the Most High, as mentioned above,

and <b>betrothal</b>-

(from the term separation and distinction³⁵)

- on the abstinence from worldly matters.

And in this there are the two modes mentioned above - which of them is the "cause" and comes first,

which depends on the manner and order of the service,

whether in the way of from below to above,

or from above to below³⁶

In the service from below to above, the matter of betrothal comes first - first a Jew must have abstinence from desires etc. of this world,

and through this there is awakened in him the love and longing for Divinity

(acquisition of the money)³⁷

- depart from evil

(and afterwards³⁸)

and do good.

In the avodah from above downward however,

is this in the opposite manner: after

as he stands with an arousal of love for G-d,

acquisition &lt;b&gt;silver&lt;/b&gt;,

becomes through this opened in him the matter of kiddushin — the separation from the world.

6.

The difference between the two manners

(from below upward and from above downward)

is from the aspect of that they are two types of service: the first manner is the service that is according to order and gradation,

which this is the service that is according to reason and intellect

(of holiness),

and therefore he cannot come to love of G‑d before he separates himself from love of and lusts for matters of the world.

The second manner is the service that is not according to order and gradation,

the service that is above reason and intellect: that not looking at his standing and situation&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

he gives himself over in attachment to G‑dliness which this comes from the aspect of acceptance of the yoke,

which is above reason and intellect,

and through this he becomes separated and exempt from lusts and pleasures of this world.

And one could say,

that this is also the difference between the two studies — the study of "when a man takes a woman" in the section of Kiddushin and the study of "she shall go out free, without payment",

where it speaks about a Hebrew maidservant:

In the section of Kiddushin — the matter of Kiddushin in the regular order of service — the order is,

that first the Kiddushin must take place,

separation from worldly matters,

and then "kesef" — love and unity with G‑d.

But not so in the matter of kiddushin in the section of the Hebrew maidservant — the service of a <b>slave</b>,

which in general is the service of accepting the yoke

(above reason and intellect)

— in <b>the </b>kiddushin

one can arrive at the giving and surrender to G‑dliness even before one reaches separation from worldly matters; until that, due to the greatness of the surrender and giving to G‑dliness which is above reason and intellect,

he then becomes automatically separated from worldly matters.

7.

And one can also say

(and in greater depth),

that the above-mentioned matter has a connection specifically to a Hebrew maidservant -

The two modes of divine service mentioned above are

(also)

in accordance with the different levels in the state of the Jew who performs the divine service: if his state is such that the separation from desires of this world must be accomplished by him literally - then the order is

(in the usual manner)

: one cannot attain the higher levels in divine service,

to union and cleaving to God

(through love)

unless one first nullifies the evil that one has within oneself

(the desires of this world)⁴⁰

; and consequently, the matter of kiddushin must come first

(separation and distinction)

and afterwards "kesef"

(union and cleaving to God).

But when one is already separated from the desires of this world in their simple sense,

and there is required of him a higher level of separation — to separate from the "nature of his character traits",

to serve the Above not according to the measures of his nature — such separation is accomplished through the service of "the intellect of gadlut",

the contemplation in the depths of the heart upon G‑dliness,

which causes that his nature of character traits should be transformed from their nature,

"that the desire for G‑dliness be in a change from the essence

of his desire for the pleasures of this world, and through the transformation of desires"⁴¹.

And therefore one learns the manner in kiddushei kesef of an amah ivriyah specifically,

because the level of an amah ivriyah is⁴¹

- a change of measures from essence to essence,

just like the work of an amah simply: she takes

(simple)

produce and makes from it a food,

delicacies.

And since "every soul in particular"⁴¹

has in itself all the levels,

there is the capacity to give oneself over entirely in love

and attachment to G-d,

and from this there is automatically brought about the separation from the desire and craving for this world, even to an extent of a change of the nature of the attributes from essence to essence.

And through this the woman is acquired to her husband — unity and attachment of Jews with the Most High,

in the ultimate unity,

which is the matter of marriage⁴²,

which will be very soon

(through the service of betrothal⁴²

in the time of exile),

with the coming of our righteous Messiah.

13 Elul*,

5714)