Deliberate Humiliation
“Take Care of My Father”
(Gittin 75b)
The Gemara presents a debate concerning a husband who gave his wife a get but stipulated that it is valid only if she takes care of his father. According to R’ Ashi, she fulfills this condition by caring for the father for just one day. According to Rava, she must take care of the father for the rest of his life for the get to be valid. The poskim debate which opinion is accepted in halacha (see Shulchan Aruch E.H. 143:8).
A House in Return for Service
The Rashba (76a) asks if this debate would also apply in the case of a person who offered someone else ownership of a house in return for supporting his father. Would R’ Ashi also rule in such a case that it is enough to support the father for just one day? Perhaps not. When a husband divorces his wife, essentially she does not owe him anything. Therefore, R’ Ashi interpreted the husband’s intent as a lowly ploy to humiliate his ex-wife by forcing her into the service of his family. Serving the father for just one day is enough to satisfy the husband’s cruel humor. However, when a person offers a valuable house in return for supporting his father, even R’ Ashi might agree that he intended to receive the full value of his house by having his father supported for the rest of his life.
Forgiving a Debt on Condition
The Ben Ish Chai discusses the case of a person who owed someone money. The lender had a cruel sense of humor, and agreed (in the presence of witnesses) to forgive the entire debt if the borrower would wear an “Arab cloak.” In discussing this question, the Ben Ish Chai describes this as a “lowly, coarse garment, like those worn by traveling Arabs. It was often filthy and covered with patches.” The poor borrower preferred humiliating himself by wearing such garment to paying a weighty sum. He donned the filthy cloak and walked around the city dressed in it, thinking that he had thus rid himself of his debt.
Sometime later the lender died, and his children inherited the debts owed to him. To the borrower’s surprise, they claimed that he still owed them money. They claimed that their father had intended to forgive the loan only if the borrower would wear the Arab cloak for the rest of his life.
The Ben Ish Chai ruled in favor of the borrower, that he fulfilled his obligation by wearing the cloak once. He explains, in accordance with the Rashba, that R’ Ashi distinguishes between a case in which the person making the stipulation intends to humiliate the other party and when he intends to receive a real benefit. In this case, the lender intended only to humiliate the borrower by making him wear an Arab cloak. Therefore, it was sufficient for him to wear it only once (Teshuvos Torah L’Shma, 338).
