כאשר בני-זוג נישאים, הם מקווים לבנות את עתידם המשותף באהבה, מתוך הבנה וחברות. אולם, המציאות מלמדת שלעתים הזוגיות עולה על שרטון. בפרק זה נלמד על קשיים ומשברים בחיי הנישואין : על חלקם ניתן להתגבר ולכונן שלום- בית ואחווה, וחלקם מוביל לפרידה ולגירושין.
פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב), בראשית פרשת בראשית, פרק ב'
תנא משמיה דרבי מאיר:
איש ואשה שכינה ביניהם- י"ה:
יו"ד באיש, וה"א באשה,
זכו - שכינה ביניהן ומתברכין,
לא זכו- שכינה מסתלקת מביניהן
ונדבקות שתי האשות ואש אוכלתן:
לקח טוב: מדרש על התורה. חובר בימי הביניים ביוון, ע"י רבי טוביהו ב"ר אליעזר.
דריש רבי עקיבא:
איש ואשה:
זכו- שכינה ביניהן
לא זכו - אש אוכלתן
MISHNA: When the priest comes to write the scroll of the sota that is to be placed in the water, from what place in the Torah passage concerning the sota (Numbers 5:11–31) does he write? He starts from the verse: “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to defilement while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (Numbers 5:19); and continues: “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband” (Numbers 5:20). And then he does not write the beginning of the following verse, which states: “Then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman” (Numbers 5:21), but he does write the oath recorded in the continuation of the verse: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away” (Numbers 5:21–22); but he does not write the conclusion of the verse: “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen” (Numbers 5:22). Rabbi Yosei says: He does not interrupt the verses but rather writes the entire passage without any omissions. Rabbi Yehuda says: He writes nothing other than curses recorded in the final verses cited above: “The Lord shall make you a curse and an oath among your people when the Lord will cause your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell. And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and cause your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away.” And he does not write the conclusion of the verse: “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen.” GEMARA: With regard to what issue do the Sages in the mishna disagree? What is the source of their disagreement? They disagree concerning the proper interpretation of the verse: “And the priest shall write these [ha’eleh] curses [et ha’alot] in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23). Rabbi Meir, the first tanna of the mishna, reasons: The word “alot,” curses, is referring to actual curses. The prefix ha, meaning: The, in the word “ha’alot” serves to include curses that come on account of the blessings, i.e., the curses that are inferred from the phrase: “You shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse” (5:19). The word “eleh,” meaning these, is a limiting term that serves to exclude the long list of curses that are recorded in Mishne Torah, the book of Deuteronomy (chapter 28). Although these curses are also referred to as “alot,” the priest does not write them. The addition of the definite article in the word “ha’eleh” serves to exclude the commands recorded in the sota passage and the acceptances by the word “amen” recorded there as well. The priest need not write these sections of the passage. And Rabbi Yosei interprets it: It would all be as you, Rabbi Meir, said; however, the additional word “et” in the verse amplifies its scope. It serves to include both commands and acceptances, as they must be written in the scroll as well. And why does Rabbi Meir disagree? As a rule, he does not interpret the additional word et as amplifying a verse’s scope. And as for Rabbi Yehuda, he interprets all of the terms in the verse as exclusionary: The word “alot” is referring specifically to the actual curses recorded in the verses. The definite article in the word “ha’alot” serves to exclude curses that come on account of blessings. The word “eleh” serves to exclude the curses recorded in the Mishne Torah. And the definite article in the word “ha’eleh” serves to exclude the commands and acceptances recorded in the verses. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Meir, what is different about this letter heh at the beginning of the word “ha’alot” such that it amplifies the halakha to include curses that come on account of the blessings, and what is different about that letter heh in the word “ha’eleh” such that it excludes the commands and acceptances by the word “amen”? Why should one amplify while the other excludes? The Gemara answers: The letter heh when written near an amplifier is an amplifier. The word “alot” itself amplifies the halakha, and the definite article extends that amplification; and a heh when written near a restrictor is a restrictor. The word “eleh” itself restricts the halakha, and the definite article before it extends that restriction. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement. What is to be gained by writing the blessings if one cannot infer the curses from them? Rabbi Tanḥum says: It is written: “If no man has lain with you…you shall be free [hinnaki]” (Numbers 5:19). The word “hinnaki” should be interpreted as if it were in fact ḥinnaki, meaning: You shall choke. When read with the beginning of the next verse, it then forms the sentence: You shall choke… if you have gone astray while under your husband. Therefore, Rabbi Meir understands the blessings themselves to have a dimension of a curse. § Rabbi Akiva taught: If a man [ish] and woman [isha] merit reward through a faithful marriage, the Divine Presence rests between them. The words ish and isha are almost identical; the difference between them is the middle letter yod in ish, and the final letter heh in isha. These two letters can be joined to form the name of God spelled yod, heh. But if due to licentiousness they do not merit reward, the Divine Presence departs, leaving in each word only the letters alef and shin, which spell esh, fire. Therefore, fire consumes them. Rava said: And the fire that consumes the woman is stronger and more immediate than that which consumes the man. What is the reason for this? The letters alef and shin in the word isha are adjacent, joined together, but in the word ish they are not joined, as the letter yod is written between them. Additionally, Rava says: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring dust for the sota? It is because if she merits to be proven faith-ful after drinking the water of the sota, a child like our Patriarch Abraham will emerge from her, as it is written with regard to Abraham that he said: “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). But if she does not merit to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the sota, she shall die and return to her dust, the soil from which mankind was formed. And Rava further taught: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham said: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27), his children merited two mitzvot: The ashes of the red heifer (see Numbers, chapter 19) and the dust of the sota. The Gemara asks: But there is also another mitzva involving dust: The dust used for covering the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl (see Leviticus 17:13). The Gemara answers: There, the dust does serve as an accessory to the mitzva of covering the blood, but there is no benefit imparted by it. It occurs after the animal has been slaughtered and does not itself render the meat fit for consumption. Rava further taught: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham said to the king of Sodom: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries impart benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence. MISHNA: The priest does not write the scroll of the sota upon a wooden tablet, and not upon paper made from grass, and not upon
גם כאשר בני-הזוג חווים קשיים, השאיפה היא להביא לתיקון היחסים, ליישוב ההדורים ולשיקום התא המשפחתי. ההנחה היא שתחילה מוטב לטפל בבעיות ולנסות לפתור אותן, לפני שמפרקים את מסגרת הנישואין.
הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן,
אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם,
אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה:
(12) Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and bringing them closer to Torah."
מסכת אבות דרבי נתן נוסחא ב פרק כד
דבר אחר: הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן [...]
וכן איש שהיה צהוב עם אשתו ומשלחה מביתו
והיה אהרן הולך אצלו
ואומר לו: בני, למה צהבת עם אשתך?
אומר לו: על שסרחה עלי.
אמר לו: הרי אני עורבה שאינה סורחת עוד עליך מעתה.
הולך לו אצל אשתו
ואומר לה: בתי, למה צהבת את בעליך?
אמרה לו: שהכני וקללני.
אמר לה: הריני עורבו שאינו מכך ולא מקללך עוד מעתה.
וכך אהרן עושה כל ימיו
עד שהיה מכניסה לתוך ביתו והייתה מתעברת ויולדת בן
ואמרה: לא ניתן לי הבן הזה כי אם בזכות אהרן.
אבות דרבי נתן: אחת מן "המסכתות הקטנות". מפרשת ומרחיבה את מסכת אבות שבמשנה. מקורה כנראה בארץ ישראל ומיוחסת לרבי נתן הבבלי, בסוף תקופת התנאים. החיבור הגיע אלינו בשני נוסחים שהתגבשו סופית רק בתקופת הגאונים (מאה שביעית לספירה).
עיון ודיון
1. תארו באיזו דרך פעל אהרון כדי להשכין שלום.
2. דונו: האם דרך זו יעילה תמיד? מהם יתרונותיה? מהם חסרונותיה?
3. ספרו על מקרה בו אתם הצלחתם להשכין שלום בין שני צדדים במריבה.
רב הוה מיפטר מרבי חייא.
אמר ליה: רחמנא ליצלך ממידי דקשה ממיתא.
ומי איכא מידי דקשה ממיתא?
נפק דק ואשכח:
"וּמוֹצֶא אֲנִי מַר מִמָּוֶת אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה וגו'" .
רב הוה קא מצערא לה דביתהו,
כי אמר לה:'עבידי לי טלופחי'
- עבדא ליה חימצי.
'חימצי'
- עבדא ליה טלופחי.
כי גדל חייא בריה, אפיך לה.
אמר ליה: איעליא לך אמך!
אמר ליה: אנא הוא דקא אפיכנא לה.
אמר ליה: היינו דקא אמרי אינשי:
דנפיק מינך - טעמא מלפך,
את לא תעביד הכי,
שנאמר: לִמְּדוּ לְשׁוֹנָם דַּבֶּר-שֶׁקֶר.(ירמיהו ט, ד)
רבי חייא הוה קא מצערא ליה דביתהו,
כי הוה משכח מידי,
צייר ליה בסודריה ומייתי ניהליה.
אמר ליה רב: והא קא מצערא ליה למר! אמר ליה: דיינו שמגדלות את בנינו,
ומצילות אותנו מן החטא.
and who lends a sela to a pauper at his time of need, about him the verse states: “Then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:9). § The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for a series of statements cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Woman; and land; helper; this; two; the blessings; merchants; lowly. The Gemara presents these statements: Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have a wife is not a man, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them…and called their name Adam” (Genesis 5:2). And Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have his own land is not a man, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16). And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will make him a helpmate for him [kenegdo]” (Genesis 2:18)? If one is worthy his wife helps him; if he is not worthy she is against him. And some say a slightly different version: Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in the Torah with a spelling that allows it to be read: Striking him [kenagdo], and we read it as though it said: For him [kenegdo]. If he is worthy she is for him as his helpmate; if he is not worthy she strikes him. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: It is written: I will make him a helpmate. In what manner does a woman help a man? Elijah said to him: When a man brings wheat from the field, does he chew raw wheat? When he brings home flax, does he wear unprocessed flax? His wife turns the raw products into bread and clothing. Is his wife not found to be the one who lights up his eyes and stands him on his feet? And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with each animal and beast in his search for his mate, and his mind was not at ease, in accordance with the verse: “And for Adam, there was not found a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:20), until he had intercourse with Eve. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed [nivrekhu]” (Genesis 12:3)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham: I have two good shoots to graft [lehavrikh] onto you: Ruth the Moabite, the ancestress of the house of David, and Naamah the Ammonite, whose marriage with Solomon led to the ensuing dynasty of the kings of Judea. “All the families of the earth” means: Even families that live in the earth, i.e., who have land of their own, are blessed only due to the Jewish people. Similarly, when the verse states: “All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” (Genesis 18:18), it indicates that even ships that come from Galia to Hispania are blessed only due to the Jewish people. And Rabbi Elazar said: All craftsmen are destined to stand upon and work the land, as it is stated: “And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land” (Ezekiel 27:29). And Rabbi Elazar said: There is no occupation lowlier than working the land, as it is stated: “And they shall come down,” implying that one who works the land is of lower stature than even a sailor. The Gemara similarly relates: Rabbi Elazar saw land that was plowed across its width. He said to it: Even if they plow you once more lengthwise, for further improvement, conducting business is better than farming with you, as the potential profits gained by selling merchandise are far greater than those from working the land. The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav entered between the sheaves in a field and saw them waving in the wind. He said to them: If you want to wave go ahead and wave, but conducting business is better than farming with you. Rava similarly said: One who has a hundred dinars that are invested in a business is able to eat meat and wine every day, whereas he who has a hundred dinars worth of land eats only salt and vegetables. And what is more, working the land causes him to lie on the ground at night in order to guard it, and it draws quarrels upon him with other people. Rav Pappa said: Sow your own produce and do not buy it. Even though they are equal to each other in value, these that you sow will be blessed. Conversely, buy your clothes rather than weave [teizul] them yourself. The Gemara comments: This applies only to mats [bistarkei], but with regard to the cloak one wears, perhaps he will not find it precisely to his liking, and therefore he should make his own cloak, which fits his measurements. Rav Pappa further advised: If there is a hole in your house, close it up and do not enlarge it and then plaster it, or at least plaster it and do not knock it down and build it again. As, whoever engages in construction becomes poor. Hurry to buy land so that you do not lose the opportunity. Be patient and marry a woman who is suitable for you. Descend a level to marry a woman of lower social status, and ascend a level to choose a friend [shushevina]. Rabbi Elazar bar Avina said: Calamity befalls the world only due to the sins of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “I have cut off nations, their corners are desolate; I have made their streets waste” (Zephaniah 3:6), and it is written: “I said: Surely you will fear Me, you will receive correction” (Zephaniah 3:7). This indicates that other nations were punished so that the Jewish people would mend their ways. The Gemara cites more statements with regard to wives. When Rav was taking leave of his uncle and teacher, Rabbi Ḥiyya, upon his return from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: May the Merciful One save you from something that is worse than death. Rav was perplexed: Is there anything that is worse than death? He went, examined the sources, and found the following verse: “And I find more bitter than death the woman, etc.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). Rabbi Ḥiyya was hinting at this verse, and indeed, Rav’s wife would constantly aggravate him. When he would say to her: Prepare me lentils, she would prepare him peas; if he asked her for peas, she would prepare him lentils. When Ḥiyya, his son, grew up, he would reverse the requests Rav asked him to convey to her, so that Rav would get what he wanted. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Your mother has improved now that you convey my requests. He said to Rav: It is I who reverse your request to her. Rav said to him: This is an example of the well-known adage that people say: He who comes from you shall teach you wisdom; I should have thought of that idea myself. You, however, should not do so, i.e., reverse my request, as it is stated: “They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they weary themselves to commit iniquity, etc.” (Jeremiah 9:4). If you attribute such a request to me, you will have uttered a falsehood. The Gemara relates a similar story. Rabbi Ḥiyya’s wife would constantly aggravate him. Nevertheless, when he would find something she would appreciate, he would wrap it in his shawl and bring it to her. Rav said to him: Doesn’t she constantly aggravate you? Why do you bring her things? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: It is enough for us that our wives raise our children and save us
ביאור:
רב הוה מיפטר [היה נפרד] מר' חייא שהיה דודו ורבו,
כאשר חזר מארץ ישראל לבבל,
אמר ליה [לו] ר' חייא: רחמנא ליצלך ממידי [ה' יצילך מדבר] שקשה ממותא [ממוות].
ותהה רב:ומי איכא מידי [והאם יש דבר] שקשה ממותא [ממוות]?
נפק, דק ואשכח [יצא, דקדק במקראות ומצא] את הכתוב "ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה" (קהלת ז, כו) וזה שרמז לו ר' חייא. וכך אירע לו:
רב הוה קא מצערא ליה דביתהו [היתה מצערת אותו אשתו]
כי [כאשר] אמר לה "עבידי לי טלופחי" [עשי לי עדשים]
עבדא ליה חימצי [היתה עושה לו חומצה, חומוס]
כשהיה אומר לה "עשי לי חימצי" [חומצה], עבדא ליה טלופחי [היתה עושה לו עדשים].
כי [כאשר] גדל חייא בריה [בנו], אפיך [היה חייא הופך] לה והיה אומר לאמו בשם אביו היפך הדברים שהוא רוצה, ואז היה אביו מקבל כרצונו.
אמר ליה [לו] רב לחייא בנו: איעליא [השתפרה] לך, כלפיך אמך! אמר ליה [לו]: אנא [אני] הוא דקא אפיכנא [שהופך] לה את דבריך. אמר ליה [לו]: היינו דקא אמרי אינשי [זהו שאומרים אנשים] בפתגם מקובל: דנפיק מינך, טעמא מלפך [זה שיוצא ממך, טעם, דעת מלמד אותך], שכן אני עצמי הייתי צריך לעשות זאת. אבל את [אתה] לא תעביד הכי [תעשה כך] עוד,
שנאמר: "למדו לשונם דבר שקר העוה נלאו" (ירמיהו ט, ד), שאם אתה אומר זאת בשמי - שקר הוא.
כיוצא בו מסופר:
ר' חייא הוה קא מצערא ליה דביתהו [היתה מצערת אותו אשתו].
אף על פי כן, כי הוה משכח מידי,
צייר ליה בסודריה ומייתי ניהלה
[כאשר היה מוצא דבר טוב, היה צורר אותו בסודרו ומביא לה].
אמר ליה [לו] רב: והא קא מצערא ליה למר
[והרי היא מצערת את אדוני] ומדוע אתה משתדל להנות אותה?
אמר ליה [לו]: דיינו שמגדלות הנשים את בנינו,
ומצילות אותנו מן החטא, ומשום כך ראוי לנו להכיר להן תודה.
רבי חייא- (רבי חייא הגדול) – חכם בדור המעבר בין תקופת התנאים לאמוראים (מאה שניה לספירה).
נולד בבבל ועלה לא"י.
רב (רבי אבא בר איבו) – דור ראשון לאמוראי בבל. ייסד את ישיבת סורא. בצעירותו למד אצל רבי יהודה הנשיא בא"י.
אחיינו של רבי חייא.
עיון ודיון:
1. א. ספרו במילים שלכם: מה הייתה עושה אשתו של רב?
ב. כיצד התמודד בנו של רב, עם מעשיה של אמו?
2. לדעתכם, האם התנהגותו של הבן הייתה מכבדת כלפי אמו? נמקו!
3. מדוע גער רב בבנו?
4. מה נהג רבי חייא לעשות למען אשתו?
5. רב, אחיינו של רבי חייא, התפלא על התנהגותו של דוֹדוׂ. הסבירו מדוע!
6. חוו דעתכם על מערכת היחסים הזוגית שמתאר רבי חייא .
פותחים סוגריים
"אשתו של"
יש לזכור כי ספרות חז"ל נכתבה לפני מאות רבות של שנים, על-ידי גברים ועבור גברים שלימדו ולמדו אותה. לכן, לעתים אנו מוצאים בה ביטויים שהיו מקובלים בעולם העתיק, אך נתפסים בימינו כהתייחסות פטרונית כלפי נשים. למשל: במקורות רבים הנשים אינן מופיעות בשמותיהן, אלא כ"אשתו של". עם זאת, וכפי שלמדנו, בחלק מן הסיפורים ניתן לחשוף גם ייצוג להלך-רוחן של נשים, תחושותיהן מחשבותיהן ותפיסת עולמן.
בסוגיה זו למדנו על נשותיהם של רב ושל רבי חייא, שנהגו "לצער" את בעליהן. במקומות אחרים בתלמוד מובאים סיפורים המוסיפים ומאירים בזווית אחרת את הנשים הללו, ואולי אף מציעים הסבר להתנהגותן.
התלמוד מספר לנו אודות האמורא רב, את הסיפור הבא:
רב, כי איקלע לדרדשיר,
[מכריז] ואמר:
מאן הויא ליומא!
רש"י: מאן הויא ליומי –
מי חפצה לינשא לימים שאתעכב כאן.
one halakha, i.e., that the halakha in this case is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and another halakha, i.e., that the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Abaye said: From where do I say that concerning anyone whose status as a mamzer is uncertain, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov they are treated equivalently to one who is definitely a mamzer? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: With regard to one who engaged in intercourse with and impregnated many women, but he does not know with which women he had intercourse, and similarly, with regard to a woman, if many men had intercourse with her and she became pregnant, but she does not know from which man she received the seed that caused her to become pregnant, since the identities of the parents of those children are not known, it could emerge that a father marries his daughter, and a brother marries his sister. And in this way, the entire world could become filled with mamzerim. And concerning this, it is stated: “And lest the land become full of lewdness” (Leviticus 19:29). Abaye demonstrates his claim from the fact that even though it is not certain that the children in this situation are mamzerim, nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov labels them as mamzerim and not as those whose status as a mamzer is uncertain. And Rava could have said to you: This is what the verse is saying: The word “lewdness [zima]” can be understood as an acronym of the words: Zo ma hi, meaning: What is this. It is plausible to say that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s citation of this verse indicates that he regards their status to be uncertain. The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that even in marriage, one should be careful not to create a situation that could lead to the birth of mamzerim. Therefore, a man should not marry a woman in this country and then go and marry another woman in a different country, lest a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, unite with one another, and it could emerge that a brother marries his sister, the children of whom would be mamzerim. The Gemara asks: Is that so; is there really such a prohibition? But didn’t Rav, when he happened to come to Dardeshir, make a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day, i.e., for the duration of his visit? Since his wife did not accompany him to Dardeshir, he wished to be married to another woman while he was there, in order to avoid a situation that could lead him to having forbidden thoughts. And also Rav Naḥman, when he happened to come to Shakhnetziv, made a public announcement saying: Which woman will be my wife for the day? It would appear, from the fact that both Sages married wives in two different places, that there is no prohibition in doing so. The Gemara rejects the proof: Sages are different, as their names are renowned, and therefore their children are always identified by their connection to their father. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s concern does not apply to them. The Gemara examines Rav and Rav Naḥman’s actions: But didn’t Rava say: With regard to a woman who had an offer of marriage and accepted, the emotional excitement may have caused her to have a flow of menstrual blood, which would making her ritually impure and prohibit her from engaging in intercourse. Even if she was unaware of any flow, she must consider the possibility that it occurred. To purify herself, she needs to wait seven consecutive days that are clean from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath. Only then may she marry. If so, how could Rav and Rav Naḥman marry women on the day they arrived? The Gemara explains: These Sages would send messengers seven days ahead of their arrival and they would inform the women of the Sage’s arrival. In this way, the woman who agreed to marry the Sage would have time to count the seven clean days. And if you wish, say that the Sages’ intentions were merely to be in seclusion [meyaḥadi] with the woman but not to engage in intercourse with her. Therefore, it was permitted to marry her even if she became ritually impure. Being in seclusion with a woman was sufficient to help the Sages avoid any forbidden thoughts, as the Master said: One who has bread in his basket is incomparable to one who does not have bread in his basket, i.e., just as the knowledge that food is readily available is sufficient to psychologically alleviate one’s feelings of hunger, so too, the knowledge that one’s sexual desires could be met lessens the strength of the desire itself. The Gemara cites an additional statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry his wife when at the same time his intention is to divorce her, because it is stated: “Do not devise evil against your neighbor, as he dwells securely with you” (Proverbs 3:29). It is wrong for one to intend to undermine the feelings of security that another has with him. § The mishna raises a case in which a yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his yevama and seven months later she gave birth. With respect to that child, there is an uncertainty whether he is the child of the deceased brother or whether he is the child of the yavam. The Gemara discusses the ramifications of this uncertainty in a dispute concerning inheritance. The case concerns one whose identity as the son of the deceased is uncertain, and a yavam who consummated the levirate marriage with the yevama, who both came to divide up the possessions of the deceased brother and each one claims to be the sole heir. The one of uncertain descent said: I am the son of the deceased, and therefore, as the only heir, his possessions are mine. And the yavam said to him: You are my son, and you have absolutely no rights to the possessions; rather, by virtue of the fact that I consummated the levirate marriage with the widow of the deceased, I should inherit him. The Gemara rules on this case: This is a case of property of uncertain ownership, as there is no way to determine who is the rightful heir, and the halakha is that property of uncertain ownership the claimants divide up between them. The Gemara brings another case, that of one concerning whom there is uncertainty whether he is the son of the deceased or of the yavam and the sons of the yavam, who consummated the levirate marriage with the yevama and has since died, who came to divide up the possessions of the deceased, and each one makes claim to the inheritance. The one of uncertain descent said: That man, referring to himself, is the son of the deceased, and therefore, as his sole heir, his possessions are mine. And the sons of the yavam said to him: You are our brother, and our uncle, the deceased, was not survived by any offspring and so by virtue of our father’s levirate marriage he inherited our uncle’s possessions, and now that our father has died and we are dividing up his possessions you have a right to inherit only a portion of the inheritance together with us. The Rabbis who studied before Rav Mesharshiyya thought to say: This case is analogous to a case in a mishna, as we learned a similar case in a mishna (100a) in which a woman gave birth shortly after remarrying and there is uncertainty whether the child’s father is the first or second husband. The mishna considers a case in which the husbands died and were each survived by a set of sons: If a son from either set died, the other sons of that set will inherit from him because as brothers they have an uncontested claim to the inheritance. However, he, the son of uncertain descent, does not inherit from them because his claim as a brother is uncertain and is therefore not powerful enough to allow him to take part of the inheritance from the other sons. However, if the son of uncertain descent died, they, the sons of both husbands, will jointly inherit from him. The claims of each set of sons to be his brothers are equally uncertain; therefore, since there is no one who has a definite claim to his inheritance, his possessions are split between them. The Rabbis qualify their comparison of the cases: But here, the positions are in reverse, as follows: There, in the case of the mishna, when one of the sons dies, they, the other sons of that set, can say to him, the son of uncertain descent: Bring proof that you are actually a son of our father and only then can you take a portion. Since he cannot prove this, he will not receive any of the inheritance. However, here, in the case where the son of uncertain descent is in dispute with the sons of the yavam, he, the son of uncertain descent, can say to them: Bring proof that I am not the son of the deceased, and only then can you take a portion together with me. The Rabbis claim that the principle in both cases is identical: When one party has an uncontested claim to the inheritance, and another party advances a claim to receive part of the inheritance that is based on an uncertainty, the uncertain claim is not accepted. In the mishna’s case, it is the son of uncertain descent who has an uncertain claim. The Rabbis suggest that the reverse is true in the Gemara’s case: The son of uncertain decent has an uncontested claim to the inheritance because whether he is the son of the first or second husband, he certainly has a right to some inheritance. It is the sons of the yavam who have an uncertain claim because they have a right to the inheritance only if the son of uncertain decent is actually their brother. Rav Mesharshiyya said to them: Is the case in the mishna really comparable? There, in the mishna’s case, when one of the sons dies, they, the other sons in that set, have a definite claim to the inheritance, since their claim is based on the fact that they are the dead son’s brothers, which is certainly true, and he, the son of uncertain descent, only has an uncertain claim. However, here, each party has only an uncertain claim. Although the son of uncertain descent claims that ultimately, whatever the nature of his relationship with the deceased is, he should have the right to inherit, nevertheless, since it is not actually known what that relationship is, his claim in reality is merely a composite of uncertain claims. Having rejected the analogy offered by the Rabbis, Rav Mesharshiyya offers his own analogy to the case in the mishna that the Rabbis cited: Rather, if there is a case that is analogous to the case in the mishna, then it is to this following case that it is analogous: It is comparable to a case in which following the levirate marriage a son was born, and there is uncertainty whether he is the son of the deceased or of the yavam, and that son of uncertain descent and the sons of the yavam come to divide up the possessions of the yavam himself. As there, those who are unquestionably the sons of the yavam have a definite claim; therefore, they can say to him, the son of uncertain descent: Bring proof that you are actually our brother and only then can you take a portion. Since he cannot prove this, he will not receive any of the inheritance. The Gemara brings yet another case, that of one concerning whom there is an uncertainty whether he is the son of the deceased or of the yavam and the sons of the yavam, i.e., the sons of the man who consummated the levirate marriage with the yevama and has since died, who came to divide up the possessions of the yavam after the yavam had already divided up the possessions of the deceased brother between himself and the son of uncertain descent, as per the Gemara’s ruling in the first case above. The yavam then died and his sons and the son of uncertain descent each made a claim to the inheritance: The sons of the yavam say to the son of uncertain descent: Bring proof that you are our brother, and only then can you take a portion. The son of uncertain descent said to them: Whichever way you look at it, I should receive a portion of the inheritance. If you assume that I am your brother, then give me a portion of the inheritance together with all of you, and if you assume that I am the son of the deceased, then give me the half of the possessions that your father took when he divided up the possessions with me upon the deceased’s death, because if you assume I am his son, then I am his sole heir and your father never had any rights to his possessions. The son of uncertain descent’s claim assumes that the original verdict to divide up the possessions of the deceased between the two sides may be reexamined in light of later developments. This assumption, however, is subject to a dispute: Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: The original verdict stands, i.e., the original division of the deceased’s possessions is considered a closed matter, and the new dispute concerning the possessions of the yavam is considered independently of it. Accordingly, the son of uncertain descent’s claim cannot succeed, and so he receives no portion of the inheritance of the yavam. Rabbi Yirmeya said: The original verdict is reconsidered in light of the new circumstances, and therefore in this case the son of uncertain descent can put forward his undeniable claim to some of the possessions of the yavam based on the original uncertainties that existed with regard to the division of the deceased’s possessions. Let us say that Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yirmeya disagree over the dispute between Admon and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 109b): With regard to one who owns a field and has the rights to a path that passes through land belonging to another, and he traveled to a country overseas, and when he returned the path to his field was lost, i.e., he forgot where the path was located, Admon says: He may go only on the shortest path to his field, as although it is not known where the path is, he definitely did have a path, and therefore at the very least he has a right to the shortest path. The Rabbis say: He must either purchase for himself a new path for whatever price is asked, even if it is one hundred dinars, or he will have to fly through the air to reach his field, i.e., as long as he cannot prove where the original path was, he has no rights to any other path. And we discussed the mishna and thereby established the parameters of the dispute as follows: It is difficult for the Rabbis because Admon is saying well, i.e., the logic of his opinion would seem to be compelling. And in defense of the Rabbis’ opinion, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where his field was surrounded by four individuals who owned the land on each of its four sides. Therefore, he cannot demand a path from any one of the surrounding owners, since each one can deflect his claim by suggesting that the path might have passed through one of the other owners’ land. However, this creates a further difficulty: If so, that the surrounding land is owned by different people, what is Admon’s rationale for ruling that the owner of the field has a claim to the shortest path? And in order to justify Admon’s opinion, Rava said: With regard to a case in which there are four current owners who came to own their land on the basis of purchase from four previous owners, i.e., each of the current owners acquired their land from a different previous owner, and also in a case in which there are four current owners who came to own their land on the basis of purchase from one previous owner who originally owned all four pieces of land, everyone agrees that the current owners are able to deflect him and his claim to a path. When they disagree, it is in a case in which there is only one current owner of all four pieces of land, who came to own his land on the basis of purchase from four previous owners. Admon holds that the owner of the field can say to the current owner of the surrounding land: Whichever way you construe the case, my path to my field is somewhere with you in the surrounding land. And the Rabbis hold that the owner of the surrounding land can deflect this claim because he can say to him: If you do not press your claim and are silent, then be silent, and I will sell you a path at a reasonable price. But if not, and you insist on pressing your claim, then I will return the bills of purchase of the land to their previous owners, and then you will not be able to successfully engage in a legal dispute with them, as each one could claim that the path went through one of the other pieces of land not owned by them. Having established the parameters of the dispute, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rabbi Abba, who said that the original verdict stands, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the owner of the field forgot where his path was located, the surrounding land was owned by four different owners, and therefore at that time the verdict was that he had no ability to successfully claim his path. The Rabbis apparently assume that that verdict stands, and therefore the field owner is considered to have lost any rights to the path. Consequently, even if the surrounding pieces of land are later purchased by a single person, the owner of the field cannot make a claim for his path. The Gemara continues: And the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said that the original verdict is repealed, is in accordance with the opinion of Admon. Admon apparently assumes that although the original verdict was that the field owner has no ability to successfully claim his path, nevertheless, that does not mean he loses his rights to the path. Rather, once the situation changes and the surrounding pieces of land are purchased by a single person, the original uncertainty is revived to allow him to make a claim for at least the shortest path to his field. The Gemara rejects the comparison: Rabbi Abba could have said to you: When I stated my ruling, it was even in accordance with the opinion of Admon. Admon states his ruling only there, in the case of the lost path, because the field owner said to the owner of the surrounding land: Whichever way you look at it,
ביאור:
רב, כי איקלע [כאשר היה מזדמן] לעיר דרדשיר לבדו, והיה שוהה שם זמן מסויים,
היה מכריז ואמר: מאן הויא ליומא
[מי, איזו אשה, רוצה להיות אשתי ליום] לזמן הקצר שאתעכב כאן...
משמע שהיו חכמים שנשאו נשים בכמה מקומות רחוקים!
מסופר כי יהודית, אשתו של רבי חייא, סבלה סבל רב במהלך ההריונות והלידות
(ראו גם בסוגיה 18, לעיל):
יהודה וחזקיה תאומים היו
אחד נגמרה צורתו לסוף תשעה,
ואחד נגמרה צורתו לתחילת שבעה
יהודית דביתהו דר' חייא
הוה לה צער לידה,
שנאי מנא ואתיא לקמיה דר' חייא,
אמרה: אתתא מפקדא אפריה ורביה?
אמר לה: לא.
אזלא אשתיא סמא דעקרתא,
לסוף איגלאי מילתא,
אמר לה: איכו ילדת לי חדא כרסא אחריתא;
דאמר מר:
יהודה וחזקיה - אחי
פזי וטוי – אחוותא
The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is not obligated in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28). It is the manner of a man to conquer and it is not the manner of a woman to conquer. Consequently, it is evident that the entire command, including the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, was given only to men and not to women. The Gemara raises a difficulty. On the contrary, the plural term: “And conquer it [vekhivshuha],” indicates that the two of them are included. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is written in the Torah without the letter vav, so that it can be read: And conquer it [vekhivsha], in the singular. Rav Yosef said: The proof is from here: “And God said to him: I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply [perei urvei]” (Genesis 35:11), which is in singular, and it does not state: Be fruitful and multiply [peru urvu] in the plural. The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). And Rabbi Ile’a further said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace, as it is stated: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Joseph: Please pardon your brothers’ crime, etc.” (Genesis 50:16–17). Jacob never issued this command, but his sons falsely attributed this statement to him in order to preserve peace between them and Joseph. Rabbi Natan says: It is a mitzva to depart from the truth in order to preserve peace, as it is stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). God responded in the next verse that Samuel should say he went to sacrifice an offering, indicating that God commands one to lie in order to preserve peace. It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, departed from the truth for it. As, initially it is written that Sarah said of Abraham: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and in the end it is written that God told Abraham that Sarah said: “And I am old” (Genesis 18:13). God adjusted Sarah’s words in order to spare Abraham hurt feelings that might lead Abraham and Sarah to quarrel. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that women are also included in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. It was stated that two amora’im, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, disagreed concerning this matter. One said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and one said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara comments: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as Rabbi Abbahu sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who were sitting across from him, turned their faces as an indication that they disagreed with this report of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but did not want to explicitly contradict Rabbi Abbahu’s statement out of respect for him. And some say a different version of the incident, that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said this statement, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa said: Granted, according to the one who said that Rabbi Abbahu said it, it makes sense that due to the honor of Caesar’s court, where Rabbi Abbahu maintained close ties, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not say anything to him and merely hinted at their disagreement. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said it, let them say to him explicitly: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this. In any event, it is clear that according to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this issue? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Asi said: There was an incident that came before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of Caesarea involving a woman who wanted a divorce from her husband after ten years of childless marriage, and he said that the husband must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. If it enters your mind to say that she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, what is payment for a marriage contract doing here? Why does she have a right to demand to be divorced and to receive the payment for her marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Perhaps that was in a case when she came to demand a divorce due to another claim, i.e., she wanted children for a reason other than the fulfillment of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Since this claim has merit, her husband must divorce her and pay her marriage contract. This is like the case of a certain woman who came before Rabbi Ami and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. She said to her husband: Give me the payment for my marriage contract. He said to her: Go away, as you are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply and have no right to demand a divorce. She said to him: In her old age, what will be with this woman, i.e., if I have no children, who will take care of me when I grow old? Rabbi Ami said: In a situation such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce and her and pay her marriage contract. The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain woman came before Rav Naḥman and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. He said to her: You are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. She said to him: Does this woman not require a staff for her hand and a hoe for her burial? In other words, the woman said that she wanted children so that they could care for her in her old age and bury her when she would die. Rav Naḥman said: In a case such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce her. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were twins, but one of them was fully developed after nine months of pregnancy and one was fully developed at the beginning of the seventh month, and they were born two months apart. Yehudit, the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, had acute birthing pain from these unusual deliveries. She changed her clothes to prevent Rabbi Ḥiyya from recognizing her and came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask him a halakhic question. She said: Is a woman commanded to be fruitful and multiply? He said to her: No. She went and drank an infertility potion. Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,
ביאור:
יהודה וחזקיה בני ר' חייא, תאומים היו, אלא שאחד נגמרה צורתו לסוף תשעה חודשים להריון, ואחד נגמרה צורתו לתחלת שבעה, ונולדו בהפסק זמן.
יהודית, דביתהו [אשתו] שלר' חייא, הוה [היה] לה צער לידה בגלל הלידות הבלתי־ רגילות הללו,
שנאי מנא [שינתה את בגדיה] באופן שלא יכיר בה שהיא אשתו, ואתיא לקמיה [ובאה לפני] ר' חייא לשאול אותו שאלה בהלכה, ואמרה: האם אתתא מפקדא [אשה מצווה ] על פריה ורביה? אמר לה: לא.
אזלא אשתיא סמא דעקרתא [הלכה ושתתה סם עקרות] שלא תלד יותר.
לסוף איגלאי מילתא [נגלה הדבר] שהיא היתה זו ששאלה, ושעשתה כפי שפסק.אמר לה: איכו ילדת לי חדא כרסא אחריתא [ולואי היית יולדת לי עוד בטן אחת,עוד זוג אחד של ילדים] כמו אלה שילדה, שהיו ילדיו מוצלחים ביותר שאמר מר [החכם]: יהודה וחזקיה החכמים בני ר חייא אחי [היו אחים תאומים], וכן פזי וטוי אחוותא [אחיות] תאומות היו, ומבניהן יצאו אנשים גדולים.
עיון ודיון
1. תארו את סבלה של אשתו של רבי חייא.
2. האם סיפור זה מסייע לנו להבין ללבה?
האם יש בכך הסבר מדוע נהגה "לצער" את רבי חייא?
4. נסו לחשוב: מהן האפשרויות האחרות שעמדו בפניה באותם ימים?
פותחים סוגריים
גישור
גישור הוא הליך פתרון סכסוכים מחוץ לכותלי בית המשפט, בדרך של הידברות ישירה ובהסכמה בין הצדדים. את תהליך המשא ומתן מלווה מגשר המהווה צד שלישי מקצועי וניטרלי. המגשר מסייע בניהול הדיאלוג, מכוון את הדיון ומציע הצעות , אולם אין לו סמכות החלטה לגבי פתרון הסכסוך. הגישור נותן ביטוי גם לצרכים הרגשיים של הצדדים, תורם לשיפור התקשורת ומאפשר להם לשמור ואף לשפר את מערכת היחסים ביניהם.
החוק הישראלי קובע, כי על בני הזוג המבקשים להתגרש, לנסות ולשקם תחילה את יחסיהם וליישב את הסכסוך ככל שניתן, בדרך של גישור ופשרה. החוק נכנס לתקפו בשנת 2016 והשפעתו הייתה כמעט מיידית: בשנת 2017 נרשמה ירידה של כ- 60% במספר תביעות הגירושין בבתי-הדין הרבניים ובבתי-המשפט. ההצלחה מעידה על כך שתהליך הגישור אכן מסייע לבני הזוג להימנע מהוצאות כלכליות גבוהות, מבירוקרטיה, מסחבת ומעגמת-הנפש הכרוכה בדיונים משפטיים.
חוק להסדר התדיינויות בסכסוכי משפחה (הוראת שעה), תשע"ה-2014*
1. מטרתו של חוק זה לסייע לבני זוג ולהורים וילדיהם ליישב סכסוך משפחתי ביניהם בהסכמה ובדרכי שלום, ולצמצם את הצורך בקיום התדיינות משפטית, מתוך התחשבות במכלול ההיבטים הנוגעים לסכסוך ובטובתם של כל ילדה וילד. [...]
3. (א) המבקש להגיש לערכאה שיפוטית תובענה בעניין של סכסוך משפחתי, לרבות בעניין
מזונות זמניים, יגיש תחילה לערכאה השיפוטית בקשה ליישוב סכסוך; הבקשה לא תכלול
טענות או עובדות בקשר לסכסוך או בקשר לסמכות השיפוט של הערכאה השיפוטית.
(ב) (1) הוגשה בקשה ליישוב סכסוך כאמור בסעיף קטן (א) ... יוזמנו הצדדים לבקשה ליחידת הסיוע שליד הערכאה השיפוטית לארבע פגישות מידע, היכרות ותיאום (להלן – פגישת מהו"ת [...]
(ג) פגישות המהו"ת יכללו –
(1) מתן מידע על ההליכים המשפטיים לעניין סכסוך משפחתי ועל ההשלכות של גירושין ושל כל עניין אחר בסכסוך משפחתי על הצדדים ועל ילדיהם, ובכלל זה השלכות משפטיות, רגשיות, חברתיות וכלכליות;
(2) מתן מידע לצדדים על הדרכים שיש בהן כדי לסייע להם ליישב את הסכסוך בהסכמה ובדרכי שלום ולהתמודד עם השלכותיו, לרבות ייעוץ, גישור, טיפול משפחתי או זוגי, ועל השירותים הניתנים לשם כך ביחידת הסיוע שליד הערכאה השיפוטית, בקהילה ובמגזר הפרטי;
(3) היכרות עם הצדדים כדי להעריך יחד אתם את צורכיהם ואת רצונותיהם, ולעניין ילדיהם – טובתם, רצונותיהם וזכויותיהם בעניינים הנוגעים אליהם, לסייע להם לבחון דרכים ושירותים שעשויים לתרום ליישוב הסכסוך ביניהם בהסכמה ובדרכי שלום, ולהתמודדות עם השפעות הסכסוך ולתאם עמם תכנית מתאימה להמשך התהליך;
(4) קביעת הסדרים זמניים בהסכמה בעניין מזונות או החזקות ילדים וסדרי קשר [...] או מתן המלצה לצדדים ולגורם שאליו הם יופנו להמשך הליך יישוב הסכסוך, לדאוג לקביעת הסדרים בעניינים אלה בהסכמה [...]
פותחים סוגריים
שיר אושר/ רוני סומק
אנחנו מונחים על העוגה
כמו בובות חתן כלה.
גם אם תבוא הסכין
ננסה להשאר באותה הפרוסה.
