Rash And Impulsive
‘A Place Inhabited By Many Kohanim …’
(Bava Basra 160b)
The Mishna (160a) refers to two types of gittin (either bills of divorce or bills of indebtedness) – get pashut, a standard document written completely on one side, or a get mekushar, a folded and bound document with the signatures on the back.
Our Gemara explains the reason for the get mekushar. There was a place largely inhabited by kohanim who were especially irritable, and it would happen quite often that one would divorce his wife on a rash impulse. (The Gemara (Kiddushin 70b) notes that kohanim are by nature more prone to anger.)
The difficulty encountered by such rash action is that should the kohen later regret his action and wish to retract, he is unable to do so, as the Torah states specifically in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 21:7), “Me’isha lo yikachu,” a woman divorced of her husband may he [the kohen] not take.” This prohibition includes even his own divorced wife – he may not remarry her.
Preventing Calamity
Therefore, the Sages sought to prevent such calamities with the following remedy: If a kohen would seek to divorce his wife, he was required to draw up a more complicated document – one that was bound and folded and signed on the back. Since drawing up such a document requires more effort and time it would allow the kohen the extra time to reconsider his rash action and prevent personal tragedy for the couple.
Tosafos (s.v. “Tiknu, Rabanan Mekusher …”) discuss whether a divorcing kohen in our times (i.e., the times of Tosafos) would be required to do so with a get mekushar. Tosafos offer two views: either that to do so is the preferable manner for a kohen to effect a divorce but not absolutely required or that the ruling applied only to that time and that place.
Summary Dismissal
Interestingly, though this is an Even Ha’ezer (the section of the codes dealing with marital matters) question, we find similarities to a Choshen Mishpat (the section of the codes dealing with monetary matters) question.
Rema (Choshen Mishpat end of 333) cites the case of an employee who was paid to perform a certain job and then midway through that job was dismissed. The question is whether the employee is entitled to keep the full amount of his already paid wages.
Rema ruled that the employee may keep those wages. He reasoned that when an employer discharges an employee before he was able to complete his task, it is construed as though the employer has waived any extra prepaid wages even though that work will now remain unfinished.
Rabbeinu Yerucham (cited by Rema ad loc.), however, qualifies this halacha – explaining that if the employer was in a fit of anger when he dismissed his employee, he is indeed entitled to retract when he calms down and may require the employee to complete the work. Since at the time of the dismissal he was not in control of his senses, such dismissal is not valid. Thus there is no waiver of remaining wages should the employee refuse the employer’s request for him to complete the work.
No Retraction
Toras Chayyim (ad loc. and cited by Pischei Teshuva, Choshen Mishpat 333) disagrees with this opinion and cites our Gemara. The Sages expressed their concern for a kohen who might impulsively divorce his wife and then be unable to retract. This indicates that a transaction is binding even when executed in a fit of anger. Thus the employee would be entitled to the full wages and is not required to finish the work.
