נשא אשה בא"י וגרשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל נשא אשה בא"י וגרשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגרשה בארץ ישראל נותן לה ממעות ארץ ישראל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגרשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא:
If a man married a woman in the land of Israel and divorced her in the land of Israel, he must pay her [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. If he married a woman in the land of Israel and divorced her in Cappadocia he must pay her [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. If he married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in the land of Israel, he must a gain pay [her ketubah] in the currency of the land of Israel. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he must pay her [her ketubah] in the Cappadocian currency.
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
We can now understand why we are told in Ketuvot 110b that "anyone who resides outside the Holy Land is compared to someone who has no G–d, whereas anyone who resides in the Holy Land is comparable to someone who has a G–d." Why would the Talmud say that someone who resides in ארץ ישראל is only “compared” to someone who has a G–d? Surely he does have a G–d The first half of the statement quoted is not difficult, since, though of course, G–d is omnipresent, He is manifest only in the Holy Land. Therefore, the Talmud does not say that someone who resides in חוץ לארץ does not have a G–d, but that he only does not appear to have a G–d. However, the second half of that statement surely presents us with a problem? The answer lies in the very word דומה, used by the Talmud. This word can mean "is comparable,” but it could also mean "appears as", "it is apparent." The Talmud clearly uses the word in the latter sense. By living in the Holy Land, a person demonstrates (makes it apparent) that he thinks G–d's Presence there is manifest. He includes himself amongst those who wish to serve as a מרכבה for G–d.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
