[Avodah] Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding

[Zev Sero]

On 18/02/2011 5:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:04:03PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> So I went to IM EH 3:18 to check, and I can reassure you that they
>>> reproduced the first paragraph of that teshuvah accurately. At least,
>>> any differences were more subtle than my ability to notice.

>> I didn't deny that they reproduced the text accurately.  But the
>> commenter, and the blog owner, seriously misrepresented what it says.
>> The proverb says harotze leshaker yarchik eduso, but apparently this
>> doesn't always apply.  One can present the Hebrew text that will
>> rebut ones claims, and rely on people not to check.

> I don't know what you mean. The article says that RMF "clearly and
> unambiguously writes that it is assur for the bride to give the groom
> a ring under the Chuppah."

No, he doesn't.

> The teshuvah opens
>      Bedevar eilu she'achar shehachasan qideish betabaas es hakalah
>      nasnah gam hakalah lehachasan tabaas
>      ve'amrah "Hareini mequdeshes lakh" o "atah mequdah li"...

> So it starts out talking about giving the groom a ring with some
> delcaration. But in the section I refered to, RMF continues
>      Nami nir'eh
>      de'asur la'asos kein beshe'as hachupah belo amirah

> Is that not clearelu prohibiting the bride giving the groom a ring under
> the chuppah?

No, it is not.  He is still explicitly talking about her giving him a ring
*for the purpose of kidushin*.  "Vechol shekein hocho, shema shegam hi
nosenes taba`as hu lekidushin...".   And later on, towards the end, he
repeats "Avol hocho, kesheyargilu shegam hi titen taba`as *usekadesh*...".

RMF's entire objection is that this is a perversion and subversion of the
laws of kiddushin; he doesn't even address the case where the ring she
gives him is explicitly not leshem kidushin but for some other purpose.
This is not just a pshat I'm reading into the text, it's explicit in the
text itself, and it cannot be read any other way.   The commenter calling
himself "Sydney rabbi" and the AJN Watch blogger himself are guilty at
the very least of carelessly reading the teshuvah with a predetermined
agenda, and seeing only what they wanted to see.  They've latched on to
a peripheral detail (the giving of a ring) and missed the main point
(the pretence of kiddushin).



On 18/02/2011 10:31 AM, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> ... But if you listen to the ketuba and pay attention to what
>> is said, you will hear the final operative phrase: "and we have
>> acquired [ukenina] from....our groom, for Mrs....this virgin,
>> as all that is written and explained above, with an object that
>> is fit to be used for acquisitions [bemana dechasher lemiknaya
>> beih".   That means the witnesses, acting in the bride's name
>> and on her behalf, gave the groom something of value in return
>> for his commitments in the ketuba.

> Please explain to me how "we have acquired FROM our groom" means
> "GAVE the groom something."

We acquire the groom's commitment, by giving him something.

> My understanding has been that when the kinyan sudar occurs, it is a
> legal procedure which gives legal force to his commitments in the
> ketuba

Indeed.  And what is that procedure?  The person receiving the commitment
(or someone acting on his behalf) gives the person making the commitment
some substantial object, which becomes the second person's property
(though he usually then gives it back).

> and that it is not in any sense a sort of sale or exchange of goods,

It's a kinyan chalifin, i.e. exchange.  (Note that this should not be
confused with the "kinyan *agav* sudar", which applies when there are
physical goods being transferred, and whose effect is the opposite of
our kinyan here.  In that case the seller gives something to the buyer,
representing the whole package that is being transferred, so that the
buyer can make a meshicha on it.)


On 18/02/2011 8:27 AM, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>> What is a kinyan sudar? It's consideration for a contract. A contract
>> without consideration is not binding, so if a contract benefits only one
>> party, the other party must give something in return. In civil law this
>> is usually "one dollar and other valuable consideration", or some similar
>> formula; in halacha it's a physical object, classically a handkerchief,
>> and nowadays often a pen or a gartel. There's no reason it can't be a
>> ring.

> Consideration in the above sense is not a halachic concept (or should I
> say "not a halachic consideration"?) A shtar mattana has none; hagbaha,
> meshicha, chazaka and kinyan chatzeir have none;

Kinyan sudar is merely one way to effect a halachic kinyan; the methods
you list are *other* ways of doing so, each with its own rules.  But
*this* way works by giving consideration.


> even kinyan sudar, strictly speaking, has none, since the utensil in
> question need not be shave p'ruta

But it must be substantial; if a handkerchief is used it has a minimum
shiur, less than which is merely a rag.  A prutah is the smallest value
which counts as "hana'ah"; here the point is not hana'ah, but merely
that *something* be given in exchange for a commitment to future actions.


> and according to one opinion, should be the seller's, not the buyer's.

That would be a kinyan *agav* sudar, which is a way to make a meshicha
on property that isn't physically present, or that can't be conveniently
lifted. Here there is nothing physical being transferred; instead we are
talking about a promise to do something in the future, so what would the
meshicha be on?


> Kinyan is an indication of g'mirus da'as, of an acceptance by the
> parties of the finality of the transaction

Indeed.  But *how* is that achieved?  There are a number of ways that
can be used, one of which is by giving something in return.


> Kinyan sudar need not have an object going from buyer to seller. A
> third party can "give" an object to the seller to effect the sale,
> and it is valid; see Choshen Mishpat 195:3.

But he is doing so on behalf of the buyer; putting himself in the
buyer's place because zachin le'adam shelo befanav.


> ("give" is in quotes, because it is a mattana al m'nas l'hachazir.)

That's a mere detail, and it needn't be so.  It's usually so because
the owner doesn't want to part with his tie/gartel/pen permanently.


> Thus, when the eidim are m'kabeil kinyan from the choson, nothing of
> the kalla's is being given. On her behalf, the rav gives his own
> object to the choson to "seal the deal," but the object is never hers.

The rov, or the eid?  The manual I consulted insists that the object
should belong to one of the eidim.  But whoever's it is, he's acting
as if he were the kallah, and the object becomes the chosson's property.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher