On 1/03/2011 12:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:43:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> if there is an announcement that prevents people
>>> from mistaking what's going on. That's pretty harsh.
>
>> You seem to think RMF is worried about onlookers who have no idea what's
>> going on. I don't know where you got such an idea. This has nothing to
>> do with onlookers.
>
> Then why does RMF write:
> ... velakhein be'son maaseh sheyigrom sheyishkechu
> hadin ha'emes...
>
> And:
> ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
> af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
> shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...
>
> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."
>
> Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
> they speak to?
The participants themselves, of course. If he meant onlookers he would
have said so.
> Obviously when RMF writes "qidushin", he doesn't mean it, since a woman
> giving a man a ring isn't qidushin. So what does he mean?
A purported kiddushin. *We* know that it's nonsense; if we allow them
to go through with the charade, thinking that it's harmless, they won't
know that it is a charade, and will think she really was mekadesh him,
and that there can be such a thing.
> Your diyuq
> halashon in a term that has to have meant loosely is causing you to read
> your conclusion into the words.
The term is not meant loosely, it is the most important word in the
teshuvah. He repeats it *every time* he mentions what it is that she
is doing. The whole *point* of the teshuvah is about this kiddushin
that she is performing. It is an act of kiddushin, even if we know
that it's futile and meaningless.
> You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's
> part of the wedding ceremony.
Absolutely. Not only that it's part of the ceremony, but that it's
*an act of kiddushin*. The objection is specifically to her attempting
to be mekadesh him; and the same objection would apply if she used some
other object of value, or if she tried kiddushei shtar instead of kesef.
But if it's some other part of the ceremony then that is not the subject
of the teshuvah.
> I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking to others
Again, he does not mention others, he doesn't hint at them, they simply
don't exist in the teshuvah. You're making them up.
> like it's part of the wedding.
No, like it's a kiddushin. *That* is the problem.
> At least half of the teshuvah
> is about avoiding future ta'us, including defending this as grounds for
> an issur from question based on Abba's question on Abayei. Thus, it's
> not an issue of intent, it's an issue of timing -- it's during the window
> people think of as the the wedding.
There is not a mention or even a vague hint at any such thing. You're
inserting it yourself.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name eventually run out of other people’s money
- Margaret Thatcher