One
of the favorite topics of the Rogatchover is that of time. One of his
major themes in time is that of פעולה נמשכת, he defines
certain events not as onetime events, rather as that of a constant occurrence. One example of this theme is
found in this week's parsha. The Gemorah (Chullin 91b) cited in Rashi
(28:3) says that Hashem folded all of Eretz Yisroel under Yaakov's body.
Obviously, this is a great miracle, but what was the necessity of it? And why was Yaakov told the promise of inheriting Eretz Yisroel now, in his sleep? The Rogatchover explains that by laying on
top of Eretz Yisroel he was doing a kinyan chazaka. The
Gemorah in Babba Bathrah says that one who lays out mats and sleeps on them in
a hefker pierce of land it is considered a chazakeh and
s/he acquires the land. Stones aren’t
usually used as bedding, so in was the act of lying upon them that turns them
into sheets, i.e. a פעולה נמשכת of using them is required
to make the chazaka. Therefore, as
long as Yaakov was lying on the stones it was categorized as a chazaka. Hence, at this time Hashem folded all
of Eretz Yisroel under him so that his kinyan would extend on the
entirety of Eretz Yisroel.
Another
area where the Rogatchover has this same idea is in regard to נישואין. He explains many issues
based upon his principle that the chalos of נישואין isn’t a onetime event, rather it is a chalos every
second. There is a story where Rav Chaim
expressed his disdain for this chiddush by responding mazal tov, if it’s a constant chalos
you should need a constant mazal tov and the Rogatchover responded
the mazal tov is also a פעולה נמשכת.
It seems
from The Rogatchover that a פעולה נמשכת is required when the chalos or event is something that
is unique and doesn’t fit in the regular rubric of live. It is something superimposed upon the regular
order and therefore require a constant “push” to keep it going.
The Rishonim
ask if the Avos fulfilled the entire Torah, how did Yaakov marry two sisters which
is an ervah? The Ramban (Yevamos
98a) answers that arious that come via marriage don’t exist by a ben
noach for they don’t have eishus. A relationship did exist between Jacob and his
spouses, but it was significantly different from a matrimonial relationship for
such relationships became acknowledged only at Sinai. There is no concept of a cheftah of eishus
without kiddushin v’chupa and such a chalos is a chiddush
haTorah that wasn’t in play yet.
Based upon this Ramban, the Briskor Rav answers a question of the
Rosh. The Rosh asks if the blessings on kiddushin
is a blessing on the mitzvah of kiddushin, why do we say אשר אסור לנו הארוסות which seems to be an
unnecessary intro. unrelated to the mitzvah, do we mention in the bracho of
shechita that it permits aver min hachai? The Brisker Rav
explains that the blessing is referring to in-law relationships which are forbidden only via the marriage about to be performed. The issur on in-laws makes up the cheftza of kiddushin just as much as the designation to the spouse. It is the issur
caused by kiddushin that reflects the sanctity of Klal Yisroel conferred
upon our ancestors at Sinai, it is indeed noteworthy in the beracha of the kiddushin.
Based
upon the Briskor Rav we understand that the concept of marriage is not a
natural maaseh kinyan, it is unique and therefore we can understand why
it requires a constant chalos to keep it going. However, I am aware that I'm conflating kiddushin and nissuin as apposed to the Rogatchover who differentiates between the two. Though, if my understanding of peulah hanimsheches is correct, in light of the Briskor Rov, this would seem to be the conclusion. I think the way out would be that true kiddushin isn't a regular kinyan and only has an effect because of a chiddush haTorah, but after the chiddush it becomes part of the regular laws of kinyanim. On the other hand, nissuin isn't a kinyan, rather it is a means of creating a bond between husband and wife.
Of course, the world in totality requires a constant pumping of life source from Hashem and is at best a פעולה נמשכת so in that case everything should have to be a פעולה נמשכת to keep going, but clearly that is not the assumption here. As to why that is, I don't know, and thinking about it makes my head explode.
The derush that emerges from the Rogatchover is that a marriage is not a one time event of creating a bond between husband and wife, it is something that requires constant strengthening and renewal.
Of course, the world in totality requires a constant pumping of life source from Hashem and is at best a פעולה נמשכת so in that case everything should have to be a פעולה נמשכת to keep going, but clearly that is not the assumption here. As to why that is, I don't know, and thinking about it makes my head explode.
The derush that emerges from the Rogatchover is that a marriage is not a one time event of creating a bond between husband and wife, it is something that requires constant strengthening and renewal.
Support for the way out would be that we learn out kesef kiddushin from קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, implying some connection between קידושין and ordinary קנינים. However, this isn't ironclad because it depends on how we pasken in the מחלוקת of דון מינה ומינה או דון מינה ואוקי באתרה, and how far to apply the דון מינה ומינה. Tzarich iyun.
ReplyDelete