[Avodah] Yeshivishe Peyos

[mkopinsky at gmail.com]

On 6/10/07, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> There is no mitzvah for an esrog or megillah to have a case, never
> mind a pretty one. And an artistic kesubah doesn't make the contract
> any more valid. Noi mitzvah is thus broader than hiddur mitzvah. (RYGB
> suggested here once that a wig is noi mitzvah in sei'ar be'ishah ervah,
> BTW.) Why assume it doesn't apply to lavin?

Having a pretty case for an esrog or megilla shows chibuv mitzvah.  Is
there an element of chibuv for lavim?  A kesuba is an interesting ra'aya.
Is a kesuba the cheftza of any mitzvah?  The mitzvos of eirusin and
nisu'in can both be accomplished without it.  I know there is a machlokes
whether kesuba is d'oraisa (learned out from "k'mohar habesulos" in
parshas oness) or d'rabbanan.  Is that referring to the shtar kesuba
itself, or just the 200 shekel payment?  If the shtar kesuba itself is,
according to some opinions, mandated min Hatorah, its beautification can
be explained just like the esrog case.  Even if not, I don't think that
the kesuba is about refraining from a lav, so it is no ra'aya for our
case.

Where does the halachic literature talk about noi mitzvah?  Is there any
precedent of noi mitzvah for lavim?  (RYGB's suggestion notwithstanding,
but a proof would be nice.)

KT,
Michael