רRambam, Clearly
Aa
Hilchos Gerushin · Perek 5Gerushin · Ch. 5
18 left0% read18 halachos left

·

Receiving the through her hand or domain

When a reaches a woman, her agent, her courtyard, or another domain that can receive it for her.

פרק ה18 halachosSaturday, September 26, 2026ט״ו בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 70–95 min

אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.

Chapter progress 0 of 18 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
הלכה א

When the Reaches Her Possession

-

When the says, “and he shall place it in her hand” ( 24:1, 3),

the intent of the verse is that the must reach her possession,

The ’s reference to her “hand” is not limited to her physical hand. The essential requirement is that the enter something that functions as her possession.

whether it reaches her hand,

or her bosom,

or her courtyard,

-

or her agent, whose hand she has made equivalent to her own—

all are treated the same.

An authorized agent can receive the for her because she has appointed the agent’s hand to function legally as her own.

The same applies whether the courtyard is owned by her,

or rented to her,

-

or lent to her—

all of these are considered her domain;

What matters is not absolute ownership, but whether the place is legally under her control for this purpose.

Although a husband ordinarily has rights in his wife’s property, that does not prevent her courtyard from receiving her . The divorce and the courtyard’s ability to acquire the for her take effect together.

and once the reaches her domain, she is divorced.

BackgroundDirect hand delivery in later practice

Later practice nevertheless developed to place the directly into the woman’s hand rather than relying on delivery into her courtyard.

Synopsis

The ’s requirement that the be placed “in her hand” means that it must enter her legal possession. Her hand, bosom, courtyard, rented or borrowed domain, and properly appointed agent can all serve that function.

הלכה ב

Why She Must Be Beside Her Courtyard

If a husband throws a for his wife into her courtyard:

if she is standing there beside her domain,

she is divorced;

When she stands beside her courtyard, the courtyard can function as her legal extension for receiving the .

but if she is not there,

she is not divorced,

until she stands beside her courtyard,

According to the ’s wording, once she later comes and stands beside the courtyard, the can then take effect.

-

This applies even if the courtyard is one in which the would be protected,

because divorce is considered a liability for her,

and one cannot impose a liability upon a person except in that person’s presence.

A person may sometimes acquire a benefit without knowing about it, because the law assumes the person would want the benefit. Divorce is treated differently: since it is legally classified as a liability to the woman, it cannot normally take effect through her property while she is absent.

Synopsis

A placed in a woman’s courtyard takes effect when she is standing beside it. Because divorce is treated as a liability rather than an automatic benefit, her courtyard does not ordinarily receive the for her while she is absent.

🔎Dig DeeperWhy She Must Be Beside Her Courtyard

Why She Must Be Beside Her Courtyard

, as cited by the , disagrees with this reading. He maintains that she must already be present when the is first placed in her courtyard. If she was absent then, later standing beside the courtyard does not by itself complete the divorce; an additional act or declaration would be required.

The offers a third approach and treats the matter as doubtful, because it may depend on whether the woman desired the divorce.

The adds that if the woman explicitly instructed that the be placed in her courtyard, it can take effect even while she is absent, because in that case she has expressly chosen this method of receiving it.

Sources: Tur, 139; Beit Yosef, 139; , 139:2–3.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Live ItDon’t decide for someone else

Don’t decide for someone else

A placed in a woman’s courtyard does not ordinarily take effect while she is absent, even if the courtyard can guard it perfectly. Divorce is treated as a liability to her, and a liability cannot simply be imposed on someone outside their presence.

It is easy to assume that because something seems helpful or reasonable to us, another person must want it too. We may make a plan for a family member, solve someone’s problem, or decide what they “need” before actually hearing them. Good intentions do not replace giving another person room to speak for themselves.

Try today

Before making one decision that affects someone else, ask what they actually want.

Suggested reflection on 5:2.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה ג

A Thrown Upward Toward Her Roof

If the woman is standing on top of her roof

and her husband is below in his courtyard,

-

and he throws the upward toward her—

once the reaches the airspace enclosed by the roof’s guardrail,

or comes within less than three handbreadths of the roof,

she is divorced.

This second measure applies when there is no surrounding guardrail. Through the principle of , a gap of less than three handbreadths is treated as joined to the roof.

This is provided that the is descending in a way that will bring it to rest.

The ’s entry into her airspace is effective only when its natural course is carrying it toward a complete resting place in her domain.

-

But if it is erased or burned before it reaches her—

even if it was erased after it had entered the airspace enclosed by the walls

or after it had come within less than three handbreadths of the roof,

-

for example, a wind blew, lifted it away, and it was then erased or burned—

since it was not continuing toward a resting place,

it is not a valid , and she is not divorced.

The ’s temporary passage through her airspace is not enough if its actual path shows that it will never come to rest there intact.

Synopsis

When a thrown upward enters the protected airspace of the woman’s roof, it can effect the divorce if it is continuing toward a resting place there. If its course changes so that it will never come to rest intact in her domain, the divorce does not take effect.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A husband throws the upward toward his wife’s roof. The enters the airspace enclosed by her guardrail, but a gust carries it upward and away; it is erased or burned without coming to rest there. Its passage through the airspace alone did not complete the divorce under the ’s ruling. In a different throw, the enters that airspace and continues descending toward a resting place on her roof. In that case, the treats it as having reached her domain.

🔎Dig DeeperA Thrown Upward Toward Her Roof

A Thrown Upward Toward Her Roof

Most other authorities disagree with the ’s requirement that the ultimately be headed toward a resting place in the woman’s property. In their view, once the properly enters her domain, the divorce can already take effect even if an unexpected event later destroys the document, provided the destructive condition was not already present when the husband threw it.

The , 139:4–5, records the Rambam’s position but gives greater weight to the other view.

Sources: Rambam, 5:3; , 139:4–5.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Live ItNotice where this is heading

Notice where this is heading

A can enter the woman’s airspace and still fail to effect the divorce if its actual course shows that it will never come to rest there intact. According to the , being momentarily in the right place is not enough; where the is headed matters too.

A single late night may not seem important, yet it can start a pattern that makes morning learning harder. Rather than judging yourself by that one night, notice where repeating it would lead and adjust while the choice is still small. The question is not whether today looked acceptable, but where the same choice would take you over time.

Try today

Pick one recurring choice and ask, “If I keep doing this, where is it taking me?”

Suggested reflection on 5:3.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה ד

A Falling From His Roof Into Her Courtyard

If the roof belongs to the husband,

and he is standing above on it,

while she is below in her own courtyard,

-

and he throws her toward her—

once the leaves the airspace bounded by the roof

and enters the bounded airspace of the place where she is standing,

she is divorced.

Here the is moving naturally downward from the husband’s roof toward the woman’s courtyard. Once it leaves his bounded airspace and enters hers, its continued descent toward her courtyard can be treated as naturally leading to a resting place there.

Synopsis

When the husband throws the downward from his roof into the woman’s courtyard, the divorce takes effect once the leaves his domain and enters hers, because its natural course is toward a resting place in her courtyard.

🔎Dig DeeperA Falling From His Roof Into Her Courtyard

A Falling From His Roof Into Her Courtyard

The explains the difference between this case and the previous through the ’s natural motion. In Halachah 3, the husband throws the upward, against the normal direction of gravity, so the requires that it actually be on a course toward resting in her domain.

Here the is already falling downward in the natural direction of gravity. Once it has entered her domain, the expected result is that it will continue downward and come to rest there. The , 139:6, records this approach.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 5:4; , 139:6.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ה

A Thrown Directly Into Fire or Water

If he throws the into her domain, directly into a fire,

and it is burned,

-

or directly into water and it is lost—

it is not a valid .

Although the fire or water is located within her domain, the was directed from the outset toward destruction rather than toward a place where it could arrive intact.

But if the reaches her domain,

-

and only afterward a fire comes and burns it—

the is valid.

The difference is whether destruction was built into the ’s course from the outset. If the husband throws it directly into a destructive place, it is never on a path toward entering her possession intact. If it first reaches her domain properly and only afterward an unexpected fire destroys it, that later event does not undo the divorce.

BackgroundA textual difference in this ruling

Some printed versions indicate that the must first come to rest in her domain before the later fire destroys it, while many earlier manuscripts do not contain that wording.

The uses the shorter reading to connect this with the distinction between the previous two cases: when the is moving naturally downward into her domain, entering that domain can be enough even before actual rest, provided it was not aimed directly into fire or water.

Synopsis

A thrown directly into fire or water in the woman’s domain is invalid because it was headed for destruction from the outset. If it first properly reaches her domain and is only afterward destroyed by fire, the divorce remains valid.

הלכה ו

When the Must Come to Rest in a Protected Place

-

If he throws the onto a reed or spear planted in her domain—

it is not a valid ,

until it comes to rest in a place where it is protected.

Even though the reed or spear stands inside her domain, the is not yet secure there if the top projects above the protective walls of the courtyard. Since a wind could carry it away, it has not yet come to rest in a place protected by her domain.

If there are two courtyards, one inside the other,

the inner courtyard belonging to her and the outer courtyard belonging to him,

-

and the walls of the outer courtyard are higher than those of the inner courtyard—

once he throws the into the airspace of the outer courtyard,

she is divorced;

Although the is still in the airspace of the husband’s outer courtyard, its taller walls also protect the woman’s inner courtyard. Because her courtyard is guarded by those walls, the can already be treated as protected for her once it enters that enclosing airspace.

because the inner courtyard is protected by the walls of the outer courtyard,

which is not the case with containers.

Courtyard walls are primarily meant to guard the area and the objects within it. The same principle does not automatically apply to nested containers, whose walls serve a different function.

Synopsis

A must come to rest within space that is protected as part of the woman’s domain. The walls of an outer courtyard can protect her inner courtyard, but the same principle does not automatically apply to nested containers.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A woman owns a small inner courtyard surrounded by her husband’s larger outer courtyard. His courtyard has taller walls that also shield the inner area. If he throws the into the airspace enclosed by those taller walls, the inner courtyard is already being protected by them, and the divorce can take effect even before the reaches the lower walls of her courtyard.

הלכה ז

A Woman’s Container Inside Her Husband’s Domain

How so?

There are two containers, one inside the other,

the inner one belonging to her and the outer one belonging to him,

-

and he throws her toward them—

even if the reaches the airspace of the inner container,

she is not divorced

until the comes to rest on the side of the inner container.

Unlike courtyard walls, which are designed to guard the enclosed area, the walls of a container primarily serve to hold what is actually inside it. Therefore, entering the airspace of her inner container is not enough; the must actually come to rest on her container.

When does this apply?

When her container is lying on its side,

and it has no bottom.

Because a bottomless container lying on its side has no practical use there, the husband is not presumed to object to the space it occupies.

-

But if it has a bottom—

even if the comes to rest on its bottom,

she is not divorced;

A functional container may occupy his property in a way he does object to, so her ownership of the container alone is not enough.

because a container belonging to a woman that is located in her husband’s domain

does not acquire the for her,

unless he does not object to the space it occupies.

The decisive issue is not merely that the container belongs to her. Since it is sitting in his domain, it can function as her receiving place only when he is not particular about its being there.

Synopsis

A woman’s container does not automatically acquire a for her merely because it belongs to her. When it sits in her husband’s domain, it can function for her only if he does not object to the space it occupies.

Compare the two spaces: In the courtyard case, the outer walls also guard her inner courtyard, so entering their protected airspace can suffice. With nested containers, entering the inner container’s airspace is not enough; the must rest on her container, and in his domain the container can receive it only if he does not object to the space it occupies.

🔎Dig DeeperA Woman’s Container Inside Her Husband’s Domain

A Woman’s Container Inside Her Husband’s Domain

The explanation associated with distinguishes courtyards from containers by their ordinary function. Courtyard walls are designed to guard the area and the objects within it; that protection can extend to an inner courtyard. A container’s walls, by contrast, are designed primarily to hold what is actually inside that container.

The also notes a question about where the two containers are located. One reading places both in the husband’s domain, while other authorities interpret the case differently. The practical principle remains that a woman’s container does not acquire the for her within someone else’s domain unless the owner of that domain does not object to the space it occupies.

Sources: Rashi on 79b; Maggid Mishneh on 5:7; , 139:13.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ח

Her Personal Belongings Inside His Property

If he throws her to her

-

while she is inside his house or his courtyard—

she is not divorced

until the reaches her hand

or her bosom,

or one of her own containers

whose presence in his domain the husband does not object to,

such as a small bottle, a small basket, or something similar.

Even though she is standing in his property, certain small personal belongings can function as her own receiving place because it is normal for her to bring such items with her and the husband is therefore understood not to object to their presence.

Similarly, if the reaches her own bed on which she is sitting,

-

and the bed is ten handbreadths high—

she is divorced;

because the bed forms a distinct domain of its own,

A height of ten handbreadths gives the bed a separate identity from the surrounding floor of the husband’s property.

and the husband does not object to the space occupied by the bed’s legs.

Since the bed belongs to her and its presence there is accepted, the can enter a domain treated as hers even while she is physically within the husband’s property.

This applies specifically when the bed belongs to her. If the bed belongs to the husband, the does not become hers merely by landing on it.

Synopsis

Inside the husband’s house or courtyard, the must reach the woman herself or property that can genuinely function as her own receiving place. Small personal items and, under the stated conditions, her own elevated bed can serve that purpose.

Live ItThe surroundings matter

The surroundings matter

Inside the husband’s property, it is not enough for the simply to be near the woman. It must reach her directly or enter something that genuinely functions as her own space within his domain.

Wanting to learn can be harder when your phone is beside you. Putting it in another room before you begin changes the space around your choice, so you spend less energy resisting a distraction. A small change in your environment can support a good intention long enough for you to act on it.

Try today

Change one small part of your environment to make one good choice easier.

Suggested reflection on 5:8.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה ט

A Place in His Courtyard Lent to Her

If the husband lends his wife a place in his courtyard

without specifying its exact boundaries,

and he throws her the

-

and it reaches the four in which she is standing—

she is divorced.

Since he lent her a place without defining its boundaries, we treat the four in which she is standing as the place he granted her. The next case follows a that keeps rolling, rather than coming to rest and being acquired within those four .

If the rolls away and falls on a beam or rock at a distance from her:

if the place on which it fell

does not measure four by four ,

is not ten handbreadths high,

-

and does not have a distinct identifying name of its own—

it is not treated as a separate domain,

and it is as though she and the are in one place.

If the beam or rock is too insignificant to count as a separate place, it remains part of the area treated as the place he lent her.

-

But if it has any one of these three characteristics—

it is treated as a separate domain,

and he lent her only one place,

not two separate places,

so she is not divorced

until the reaches her.

Once the lands in a location that has its own independent identity, it is no longer considered part of the single place he lent her.

Synopsis

When the husband lends his wife an undefined place in his courtyard, the four where she stands can become her receiving place. If the rolls onto a separate, independently significant location, that second place was not included in the loan.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A husband lends his wife an undefined place in his courtyard for receiving her . He throws it toward her, but it keeps rolling instead of coming to rest within her four , and finally lands on a rock farther away. If that rock is not large, high, or separately named enough to count as its own place, it remains part of the place lent to her. If the rock counts as a separate place, he did not lend her that second place and the divorce does not take effect.

🔎Dig DeeperA Place in His Courtyard Lent to Her

A Place in His Courtyard Lent to Her

interprets the case as depending on whether the place where the finally lands is significant enough to count as a separate location. This understanding is reflected in the presentation above.

The questions this reading of the and understands the role of the woman’s four differently. The , 139:11, follows the interpretation associated with Rabbenu Nissim while also preserving the Rambam-related alternative as a minority approach.

Sources: Rabbenu Nissim on ; Maggid Mishneh on 5:9; , 139:11.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה י

Passing Through Her Domain Is Not Enough

If he throws her toward her domain,

and it passes through the domain in which she is standing,

-

but falls outside her domain—

even if it passed within less than three handbreadths of the ground,

she is not divorced,

until the comes to rest in her domain.

Although the principle of can sometimes treat an object within three handbreadths as joined to the nearby surface, that principle does not help here. The ’s actual course shows that it never came to rest in her domain but continued beyond it.

Synopsis

Merely passing through the woman’s domain does not complete the divorce. Even when the travels within three handbreadths of the ground, it must actually come to rest within her domain.

הלכה יא

A That Lands on a Neighboring Roof

If the woman is standing on her roof

and her husband throws the toward her,

-

but it falls onto another roof next to hers—

if she can stretch out her hand and take it,

she is divorced;

Even though the physically landed on someone else’s roof, it is so close to her that she can reach over and take it directly from where she stands.

because although separate domains remain distinct above

just as they remain distinct below,

the neighboring roof does not become hers merely because it is adjacent to her own.

people are not particular about another person using such a small adjacent space.

The neighboring owner is not ordinarily considered to object to this limited use of the roof. Because she can reach the directly, that slight use of the neighboring space does not prevent the divorce.

Synopsis

A that lands on a neighboring roof can still effect the divorce if it is close enough for the woman to reach over and take it directly, even though the roofs remain separate domains.

🔎Dig DeeperA That Lands on a Neighboring Roof

A That Lands on a Neighboring Roof

The understands this as referring to a neighboring roof belonging to another person, as presented here.

The and other authorities understand the underlying Talmudic passage differently, treating it as a case involving two roofs belonging to the husband and drawing a conclusion similar to the earlier laws of separate spaces. The , 139:12, records the ’s view but gives greater weight to the alternative interpretation.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh and Raavad on 5:11; , 139:12.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יב

When a Falls From Her Hand

If her hand was held at an incline,

and he threw the onto her hand,

but it fell to the ground:

the did not remain in her hand, so the result depends on where it ultimately came to rest.

if it fell within her four

and came to rest there,

she is divorced;

In certain circumstances, the four surrounding a person can function as that person’s receiving area. Since the comes to rest within that space, it can be treated as having reached her domain.

But if it fell into the sea

or into a fire,

-

she is not divorced—

provided that she was standing beside the water

or close to the fire,

because from the moment it began to fall, it was headed toward destruction.

The problem is not simply that the was eventually destroyed. From the beginning of its fall, its natural course was toward the sea or fire rather than toward a place where it could come to rest intact in her possession.

Synopsis

If a slips from the woman’s inclined hand and comes to rest within her four , she is divorced. If its fall was headed from the outset toward water or fire, the divorce does not take effect.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A husband throws the toward his wife’s outstretched hand, but because her hand is slanted, the document slides off. If it lands on the ground within her four and stays there, the divorce can take effect. If she is standing beside a fire and the slides from her hand directly into the flames, it was headed for destruction from the beginning and does not effect the divorce.

הלכה יג

When the Is Closer to Him or to Her

If he throws the toward her in the public domain,

or in a domain belonging to neither of them:

Since neither spouse owns the surrounding area, the result depends on how the is associated with the husband and the wife.

if it is close to him,

she is not divorced;

if it is close to her,

she is divorced.

The next defines “close” in terms of who is able to protect the .

If the is equally situated between them,

-

or in the range between being equally situated and being clearly close to her—

her divorce is of doubtful validity;

There is not yet enough control on her side to treat the divorce as definitely complete.

If it is close to her,

-

close enough that she can bend down and pick it up—

the is disqualified,

Here does not mean that the divorce is void on the level. Once the is sufficiently close to her, the divorce can take effect according to law, but the Sages did not allow her to rely on it initially in order to remarry until the actually reaches her hand. Thus the earlier “she is divorced” and this “disqualified” ruling describe different levels of validity.

until the reaches her hand,

and only then may she rely on it from the outset in order to remarry.

Synopsis

In a public or neutral domain, the result depends on how strongly the is associated with the husband or wife. Intermediate cases produce a doubtful divorce; when it is clearly close to her, the divorce can take effect but remains Rabbinically disqualified for remarriage until the reaches her hand.

הלכה יד

What “Close to Him” Means

What is considered “close to him”?

If he can protect the ,

-

while she cannot protect it—

this is considered close to him;

“Closeness” here is measured by practical control rather than only by physical distance. If he can guard the and she cannot, it remains associated with him rather than having passed into her control.

If both of them can protect it,

-

or neither of them can protect it—

this is considered equally situated between them.

When neither side has superior practical control, the is not clearly associated with either spouse.

Synopsis

“Close” is determined by who can practically protect the . If only the husband can guard it, it is close to him; if both or neither can guard it, the is treated as equally situated between them.

🔎Dig DeeperWhat “Close to Him” Means

What “Close to Him” Means

The addresses a case the does not state explicitly: the woman can protect the but the husband cannot, yet the is still not close enough for her simply to bend down and take it. He understands the Rambam to regard the divorce in such a case as doubtful.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that this produces a stricter result than the Rambam gives in the parallel case of . The adds that many other authorities would treat the divorce as effective on the level in such a situation, with only a Rabbinic disqualification remaining.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 5:14; Beit Shmuel, 139:22.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה טו

Whose Four Came First

If the husband arrived first and stood in a particular place,

and afterward the woman came and stood opposite him,

and he threw the toward her,

-

if the is within his four —

she is not divorced,

even if she could bend down and pick it up.

A person’s four can function in certain situations as that person’s temporary acquisition area. Once one person has acquired that four- space, another person cannot simultaneously use the same area to acquire an object until the first person leaves. Because he occupied the place first, those four have already become his acquisition area. Her physical ability to reach the does not override his prior claim to that area.

But if she stood there first,

and afterward he came and stood opposite her,

-

and threw the toward her—

even if the is equally situated between them,

since it is within her four ,

the is disqualified,

Because she occupied the location first, those four have already become her acquisition area. The divorce can therefore take effect on the level, although the Sages still required actual delivery into her hand before the may be relied upon from the outset.

until the reaches her hand.

Synopsis

When the spouses’ four- areas overlap, the one who occupied the place first has priority. If the husband was first, a in his four does not divorce her; if she was first, a within her four can take effect on the level but remains Rabbinically disqualified until it reaches her hand.

Compare the outcomes in a neutral area: Only he can protect the —she is not divorced. Both or neither can protect it—the result is doubtful. She can bend down and take it—the divorce can take effect under law, but the Sages require delivery into her hand before she may rely on it to remarry. Where their four- areas overlap, the person who occupied the place first has priority.

הלכה טז

When the Husband Still Controls the

If the husband throws the into her hand,

and it is tied to a string,

with the other end of the string remaining in his hand:

the may physically be in her hand, but the divorce depends on whether the husband has truly surrendered control over it.

-

if he is able to pull it away and bring it back to himself—

she is not divorced,

As long as the string is attached strongly enough for the husband to pull the back to himself, the transfer is incomplete; the has not passed fully beyond his control.

until the string is severed;

Once the connection that allows him to reclaim the is broken, his control over it ends and the transfer can take effect.

-

but if he is unable to pull it away from her—

she is divorced.

The significant point is not merely that a string is attached. If the attachment is too weak for the husband actually to retrieve the , the document has passed beyond his effective control.

Synopsis

A does not effect divorce while the husband can still pull it back to himself by an attached string. Once the has passed beyond his ability to reclaim in that way, the transfer can take effect.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A husband places the into his wife’s hand, but a strong cord remains tied to it and he keeps hold of the other end. If he can tug the cord and pull the back to himself, the divorce has not taken effect. If the cord is too weak to retrieve the , or it is severed, the document is no longer under his control in the same way.

🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Still Controls the

When the Husband Still Controls the

The , 138:2, explains that the string must be attached strongly enough for the husband actually to be capable of pulling the back to himself. If the attachment is too weak for that, the divorce can take effect.

The same discussion distinguishes a case in which the husband could retrieve the through the string but the woman prevents him only by gripping the document tightly. In that situation, her physical resistance does not necessarily mean that he has surrendered control.

The rules that if the string is later severed, the divorce then takes effect. Other authorities disagree, maintaining that because the original act of giving was defective, the husband must perform a new valid delivery.

Sources: Rambam, 5:16; , 138:2.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Live ItLet go completely

Let go completely

The husband can place the directly into his wife’s hand, yet the divorce does not take effect if he is still holding a strong enough string to pull it back. The document has reached her physically, but he has not truly released control of it.

We sometimes hand someone a responsibility while correcting details. If you ask a child to pack for a trip, checking every item for them can leave little room for them to take charge. You can agree on what must be packed, then give them space to handle the rest. Notice whether your help leaves them with real ownership of what you entrusted to them.

Try today

Notice one thing you have handed off and ask whether you are still trying to control it from the other end.

Suggested reflection on 5:16.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה יז

A Placed in Her Servant’s Hand

If the husband places the in the hand of a servant who belongs to her,

and the servant is awake

while she is guarding him:

the servant can potentially function like property belonging to her, but because he is a living person who can move independently, additional conditions are required.

-

if the servant is bound—

the is valid,

and it is as though the had reached her courtyard while she was standing beside it;

Because the bound servant cannot move away independently and she is guarding him, he can function like a stationary domain belonging to her.

-

but if he is not bound—

it is not a valid .

An awake, unbound servant cannot function like her courtyard. He has an independent will and can move on his own, whereas a person’s courtyard serves as an extension of the person only when it is sufficiently stationary and under that person’s control.

If the husband places the in the servant’s hand,

while the servant is asleep

-

and she is guarding him—

the is disqualified;

Here means that the divorce is disqualified by Rabbinic decree. Although the sleeping servant is not presently moving about, the Sages disqualified this case lest one come to validate delivery through an awake, unbound servant as well.

-

but if he is bound—

she is divorced.

Binding removes the concern that the servant can move independently, allowing him to function as her guarded domain.

Synopsis

A servant belonging to the woman can function like her courtyard only when he is sufficiently stationary and under her control. According to the , an awake servant must be bound, while an unbound sleeping servant leaves the only Rabbinically disqualified.

🔎Dig DeeperA Placed in Her Servant’s Hand

A Placed in Her Servant’s Hand

The and other authorities disagree with the and require the servant to be both bound and asleep before the can take effect through him.

The , 139:16, records both positions, while giving significant weight to the Rambam’s view that an awake servant can suffice when he is bound and the woman is guarding him.

Sources: Tur, 139; , 139:16.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יח

Acquiring the Servant or Courtyard Together With the

If the husband writes a

and places it in the hand of his own servant,

-

and writes her a deed giving that servant to her as a gift—

once she acquires the servant,

she also acquires the ,

and she is divorced,

provided that the servant was bound.

The servant and the pass into her possession together. Because the servant is bound, he can function like stationary property belonging to her; acquiring him therefore also brings the in his hand into her possession.

-

But if the servant is unbound and awake—

she acquires the servant,

but she is not divorced,

until the reaches her hand.

Her acquisition of the servant is valid, but an awake, unbound servant does not function as a stationary domain capable of acquiring the for her. The must therefore actually reach her.

Similarly, if the husband placed the in his own courtyard,

and then sold the courtyard to her

-

or gave it to her as a gift—

once she acquires the courtyard

through a deed,

or through money,

or through an act establishing possession,

she is divorced.

The does not need to be physically moved after she acquires the courtyard. Once the courtyard itself becomes hers through money, a deed, or , the already resting there is now within her domain, and she is divorced.

Synopsis

A woman can acquire the together with the property holding it. If she acquires a bound servant holding the , or acquires the courtyard in which the is resting, the enters her possession through that acquisition.

Sources & editorial method

Hebrew text: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Gerushin, Chapter 5. The Hebrew is preserved as the primary text and divided into short learning units.

Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.

Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.

Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.

Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.

Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.

Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.

Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.

The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.

Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.

Chapter 5 at a glance

Chapter review

Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.

  • The ’s requirement that the be placed “in her hand” means that it must enter her legal possession. Her hand, bosom, courtyard, rented or borrowed domain, and properly appointed agent can all serve that function.
  • When a thrown upward enters the protected airspace of the woman’s roof, it can effect the divorce if it is continuing toward a resting place there. If its course changes so that it will never come to rest intact in her domain, the divorce does not take effect.
  • When the husband lends his wife an undefined place in his courtyard, the four where she stands can become her receiving place. If the rolls onto a separate, independently significant location, that second place was not included in the loan.
  • In a public or neutral domain, the result depends on how strongly the is associated with the husband or wife. Intermediate cases produce a doubtful divorce; when it is clearly close to her, the divorce can take effect but remains Rabbinically disqualified for remarriage until the reaches her hand.
  • A woman can acquire the together with the property holding it. If she acquires a bound servant holding the , or acquires the courtyard in which the is resting, the enters her possession through that acquisition.
פרק ה

End of chapter.

You have reached the end of all eighteen halachos.