By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

There are two versions of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt�l�s humorous rejoinder (also known as either a joke or a subtle shtoch).� Both of the versions involve a discussion of Rav Chaim�s aversion to the overdoing of the notion of a Chakirah.� There is the version provided by Rav Shlomo Yoseph Zevin z�l in his sefer, �Ishim v�Shitos� and there is the version I had heard that differs slightly.

Both versions leave out the Gaon�s name � in apparent deference � perhaps to the laws of Lashon haRah.� But the truth is that it is not so simple that the other position is reflective of excess � in the concept of a Chakirah.

As far as the actual joke is concerned, we can ask four questions:

• Which is the accurate version?
• Which is the funnier version?
• Who was the Gaon that is referenced?
• And finally, and this is the Torah point of the article � what are the rationales and underlying processes of reasoning for the position that opposed Rav Chaim�s?

THE TWO VERSIONS

Somewhere in the Pale of Settlement, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik was at an inn � where he met a certain well known Gaon who attempted to answer a number of difficulties by proposing that marriage can be looked at as an institution that continuosly renews its chalos � its �sanctioned legal status from shamayim� � so to speak.� After the Gaon offered this explanation, which in Rav Chaim�s view was an overuse of the idea of klerring chakiros, Rav Chaim responded, �In that case, I must now offer you a Mazel Tov.�

The alternative version of the story is that Rav Chaim�s response was, �In that case, Mazel Tov, Mazel Tov, Mazel Tov..�

ANSWERING THREE OF THE QUESTIONS

Which is more accurate?� Normally, we might be tempted to go with the Rav Zevin version, as his maamarim are more carefully researched than a mere shmu�ah. On the other hand, the other version is the one that is more well known.� So we are left without clarity here. Which is funnier?� That is a matter of opinion � I am with version two.

WHO WAS THE GAON?

Who was the particular Gaon in question?� It seems that it was none other than Rav Yoseph Rosen zt�l the Rogatchover (1858-1936), who, by the way, was Rav Chaim�s chevrusah (1853-1918) when they were both very young � even though Rav Chaim was five years older than the Rogatchover.� They learned together for a year in Brisk in 1871. The Rogatchover was nicked the “Ilui HaChatzuf.”

UNFOLDING THE ROGATCHOVER’S REASONING

Now that we know who it was � let�s try to unfold his reasoning.� We must first realize that the Rogatchover was referring not to the wedding itself, but to the nature of the shibudim involved.� A shibbud in the term used in halacha for a lien or a potential lien.� Marriage, in the view of the Rogatchover, creates a unique type of obligation that can be understood as a constantly renewing lien.� He cites numerous proofs to his reasoning in Tzafnas Paneach on the Rambam 11:5. Before we get to his proofs, let�s give a brief explanation or analogy from American law.

AN EXAMPLE

When a lien on a property or item is recorded in the county registrar � the rule of thumb as to who has precedence is FIFO � first in, first out.� However, depending upon state and federal laws, there are certain liens that have priority over others � even ones that are filed earlier.� What are they?

• A lien placed on a property for the collection of property taxes
• special assessment taxes
• homeowners� association (HOA) or condominium association (COA) assessments,
• Contractor fees or a Mechanic�s lien

By way of analogy, the Torah wanted to ensure that the obligations incumbent on a husband have a certain precedence.� In order to make that happen, the Torah would create a halachic structure to that type of idea.� The structure would be of a shibud � a lien that constantly renews � with whatever advantages and drawbacks that structure would entail.

THE PROOFS

There is a Rambam in Hilchos Ishus 3:23 which rules that if one did airusin � and a blessing on kiddushin was not recited � doing so later is a bracha levatalah.� In Ishus 10:6 where teh Rambam is discussing birchas chasanim (i.e. Nissuin) � he can recite the bracha.� � even after a few days.

Why is this so?� If you compare the idea to Rambam hilchos brachos 11:5 � if the Mitzvah continues onward � it is NOT a bracha levatalah.� This is one proof that the Rogatchover has that the Rambam holds there is a constant renewal of the shibud of Nissuin.

SECOND PROOF

In Hilchos Geirushin 11:28, the Rambam also distinguishes between airusin and nissuin regarding the prohibition of marrying a nursing mother.� If it was engagement, one doesn�t force a breakup.� For marriage � one does force a breakup.

THIRD PROOF

The Rambam in Hilchos Geirushin 10:23 discusses a wife who has become a halachic shotah � a period of insanity.� He writes that, by Rabbinic edict, he is not permitted to divorce her until she recovers. �This is so that she not become hefker � so to speak. At the same time, the Rambam adds that the husband is, by Torah law, exempt from his obligations toward her during her period of insanity.� The Raavad disagrees with this and asks why he would be exempt from healing her.

The Rogatchover in his Responsa Tzofnas Pane�ach Vol. I #22, writes that we can understand this Rambam based upon the idea that the husband�s shibud to his wife is a continuous one.� That being the case � from a Torah standpoint [prior to enactments of the Rabbis], the man can divorce her even when she is in a state of insanity.� The question is how can she accept her get by Torah law?� The Rogatchover explains this because the husband’s shibud or obligation to her is one of constant renewing.� It is only renewed, by Torah law, when she is in a normative state.� If she is in a state of insanity how else would it work?

These are just a few of the proofs the Rogatchover cites that the Rambam had this view of the shibudim of Nissuin � but not airusin.

UNDERSTANDING REB CHAIM

Now that we have a stronger understanding of the Rogatchover � what would Rav Chaim�s position be?� It could very well be that in the discussion in that anonymous inn somewhere in the Pale of Settlement centered around the issue of the brachos of the wedding.� Rav Chaim could possibly have felt that while it may be logical for the Rambam to view the shibud as constantly renewing � the Rogatchover�s invoking the proof from brachos indicated aspects of the wedding itself � and not just the shibud aspect of the husband�s obligation.� It was to this aspect that Rav Chaim found untenable.

GOING BACK TO THE ROGATCHOVER

What then would be the view of the Rogatchover? �Why would he tie in the idea of the bracha of Chasanim if he just meant to invoke the lien aspect of things?� It could be that he felt that since a shibud is part of the idea of marriage � it shleps it along regarding brachos too.

The author can be reached at [email protected]