[Avodah] Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding

[Zev Sero]

On 18/02/2011 12:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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???

Nothing to do with that.  He's already said that even with a declaration
it's "einam devarim" and the kiddushin will be valid.  His objection is
not that her purported kiddushin will invalidate the real kiddushin, but
that a fake pretense at kiddushin, with or without a declaration,
subverts hilchos kiddushin.



> 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.

Of course it does.  It's precisely that she is pretending to effect a
kiddushin on him that creates the problem.  People will think such a
thing is possible and valid, and the fact that it isn't will be lost.
But every time he mentions what she is doing that he objects to, he
repeats that she is being "mekadesh" him.  Nowhere does he even refer
to the transfer of the ring per se.


> It's not like they see her purpose.

Whether they see it or not, it is her purpose, and at least those who
ask her will know it.  So will everyone else, if she does it as part of
the kiddushin ceremony.


> 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.

And the "dovor" which he prohibits is a purported kiddushin, not the
transfer of a ring.  He'd make the same objection if she purported to
be mekadesh him in some other way.  But if the ring is *not* given as
kiddushin, and it's made clear that it's not in any way for kiddushin,
then RMF doesn't even address the question and certainly doesn't
forbid it.


>> 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.

*On what*?  Every time he mentions what it is that he is assering, he
characterises it as (pretended) *kiddushin*.  Not as anything else.


> You're positing that he
> would make an exception in that case

No, I'm saying that this isn't the subject of the teshuvah at all.
No exception is needed.  It's a completely different thing, about
which no shayla was asked.   When RMF rules that a mechitza is not
required at a wedding, he's not making an exception to the general
requirement for one, he's saying that this isn't a situation where
it was ever required in the first place.  The requirement (according
to him) is at any gathering where the public is welcome, and not at
a gathering that's by invitation only.   By contrast, his ruling that
if there is only one or two women, and they're only there occasionally,
then one can daven without a mechitzah *is* an exception.  Public
tefillah in a shul is exactly the situation where a mechitzah is
required, *except* -- says RMF -- in such a case.   Our case is like
that of the private wedding, not that of the public shul into which
a woman has wandered.


> 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.

It's not a guess, it's explicit in his words.  "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*...".   What do you suppose those words are there
for?  To pad the word count?!  They are the key words, defining what
the whole problem is about.



>> 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.

Exactly.  And she (or her shliach) must do so.  It can be a pen,
a gartel, or a ring.  And it may be given before the chupah, or under
it.   But wherever it's done, its purpose must be clear: that it is
in exchange for the ketubah, and not for any other purpose, e.g. stam
a gift,  let alone that of a purported kiddushin.


>> 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".

It does have to be substantial.  A cloth that is less than the shiur of
a beged doesn't count, because it's just a shmatta.

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