<div dir="ltr"><br><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">I mentioned on areivim that the modern Hebrew term for "engaged" is m'uras/m'ureset/m'urasim.</span></div><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">The very fact tht the term applies to the groom , or to the couple, clearly illustrates that it describes a status different than kiddushin. </span></div><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Regarding the kallah, the context normally makes it perfectly clear whether the term meureset refers to engagement or kiddushin.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br>
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">However, his situation could theoretically lead to some halachic problems, in the spirit of a comment by RZS.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br>
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">Let's say that a chatan said to the kallah, under the chuppa, "harei at *meureset*</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">li b'tabbat zu....". This is a valid lashon of kiddushin, as is explicit in Even HaEzer 27;1. In chu"l, I see no reason to doubt that the woman is m'kudeshet.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">In Israel, since meureset means different things in different contexts, as above, it's not so clear to me. I am highly inclined to believe that in this case, since the context (under the chuppa) very clearly demonstrates that the chattan's intention is for kiddushin, not the less binding status of "engagement", that the women is m'kudeshet. This case seems to me to be no worse no worse than "haya m'deber ima b'shkei kiddushin, v'natan la stam"</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">A much harder question is if , *outside* the the framework of a wedding ceremony, someone in Israel were to say to a woman, while giving her an object of value, "harei at meureset li b'tabbat zu....". . Is the colloquial meaning of "meureset" in Israel able to nullify a halachicly valid lashon of kiddushin, in the case where the context is not clear? The M'chaber cited above seems to indicate that a valid lashon of kiddushin is always effective, even if not fully understood by the woman, but in this case, where colloquially "m'ureset" means "*not* m'kudeshet", possibly the term "meureset" is invalid for kiddushin. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">In this case I am inclined to believe that such a woman, if she agrees to what the man proposes, is safek m'kudeshet, although here case too, in chu"l she would be vadai m'kudeshet, since meureset means *only* m'kudeshet. </span><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Saul Mashbaum</span></div></div>