[Avodah] Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:19:10AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 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*...".

So, you're basing this on devarim shebaleiv???

But continue further, RMF writes that he is afraid people will conclude
wrong ideas about qiddushin from what they see at this wedding. This
kallah's intent or isn't has nothing to do with that cheshash. It's not
like they see her purpose. The majority of the teshuvah isn't about
reciprocol qiddushin but the slippery slope to reciprocity. RMF writes:

    mikol maqom
    vadai zeh atzmo she'osin davar sheyakhol lavo lezeh
    hu vadai inyan issur

Which RMF does distinguish from "issur mamash", but still prohibits.

> 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.

You are right, he just writes a blanket issur. You're positing that he
would make an exception in that case, but no such exception is actually
stated. It's a guess. That's a pretty far cry from your accusation that
someone who doesn't share your guess, and who just describes what's
written without adding 2 cents, is lying.

> On 18/02/2011 10:31 AM, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
...
>> 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.

But the topic is ring exchanges -- whether the bride, or her sheliach
shelo bemosah -- gives the chasan a physical object.

...
> 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).

Doesn't need to be shaveh perutah. No "substantial" there -- not even
necessarily something that can be defined as "property".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha at aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507