Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 080

Monday, July 10 2000

• Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Ran in Nedarim
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin
• Hefkerut and Kiddushin
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Ruth and Kiddushin (was Re: gut feelings and "hefkerut")
• Re: Hefkerut and Kiddushin
• karites
• Re: karites
• Re: Nusach
• Question on Rashi in P' Korach
• Re: Nusach

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> It seems to be that sh'air, ksus and onah are imposed d'oraysa after a man
> is mekadesh his wife

	Are these chiyuvim not imposed with nisuin?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 6 Jul 2000, at 13:42, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 	Are these chiyuvim not imposed with nisuin?

With respect to Onah you're correct, I was imprecise. With respect to She'air,
if we accept Rashi's peirush that it is kiruv basar, you are also right. But
with respect to ksus, I think it falls under the same category as parnassa,
and the husband would have to give his wife clothing twelve months after
Kiddushin, even if nisuin had not taken place.

Today, of course, those distinctions are largely academic, since we do
kiddushin and nisuin one right after the other (which is why I was imprecise).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
> To contend otherwise means you assume saying 'hareini mekabelet' to the
> man's amira and nesina is worse than a woman saying 'hreini mekudeshet lach
> b'nesinas ma'os zu k'das Moshe v'Yisrael' and handing over the money when
> they are asukim b'oso inyan.

The problem is that the language of "makkabeles" is not a sanctioned term
for kiddushin. Who knows what that means? So, it seems to me that it was
precisely to avoid terminological snafus that so many Poskim agonize over
the issue of da'as ha'isha in Kiddushin rather than following the simple
expedient of having her pronounce her da'as!



From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I don't understand something even more fundamental about the Ran. How can
> the bride extend her finger to accept the ring? After all, isn't this at
> least as much a ma'aseh and therefore non-hefkeir-like as amirah?

She doesn't "extend" her finger to *take* the ring - she just holds it there
for the ring to be placed upon it.

KT,
YGB



Moderator's perogative: (Why send an email for a short reply?)
Does this mean you'd require that her finger be extended already and in place
more than toch kidei dibbur before he gives her the ring? If her hand was
closed around a tehillim and she then extends the finger and holds it up
within his reach -- would you claim that ma'aseh invalidates the nisu'in?

-mi

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:59:37 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> with respect to ksus, I think it falls under the same category as parnassa,
> and the husband would have to give his wife clothing twelve months after
> Kiddushin, even if nisuin had not taken place.

	BUT he is not obligated because of kiddushin.  He is obligated because, 
through no fault of the woman,  nisuin has not taken place.  He is
therefore obligated in spite of the lack of the nisuin.  Kiddushin is not
the gorem.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 6 Jul 2000, at 14:09, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 	BUT he is not obligated because of kiddushin.  He is obligated because, 
> through no fault of the woman,  nisuin has not taken place.  He is
> therefore obligated in spite of the lack of the nisuin.  Kiddushin is not
> the gorem.

I'm not sure of that. After all, if there had been no Kiddushin, the 
fact that nisuin did not take place would be irrelevant.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

This is only sort of on topic but there was an interesting article in Yekara 
Dechaim, the sefer zikaron from R. chaim Ya'akov Goldvicht (Rosh Yeshiva of 
Kerem BeYavenh), by R. Yitzchak Twersky in which he discussed the shitah of the 
Ramban about kiddushin.  The Ramban in the hashmatos to Gittin 9 says that 
kiddushin is not the man being koneh the woman.  When I looked at it briefly 
this morning I thought that it is possible that the Ramban does not really mean 
it but I am not holding from that sugya in Gittin.  R. Twersky also brings a 
proof from Kiddushin 6b where the gemara distinguishes between a slave whom his 
master owns and a woman, presumably whose husband does not own her.  Interesting
food for thought in a concept that appears to be straightforward but is not at 
all.

Gil Student

In the interesting discussion here surrounding the Ran's shita, I have not
seen a clear exposition of the Ran's sevara: why does he need for the woman
to be "hefker" in order to effect the maaseh kiddushin?  Behashkafa rishona,
it seems that the Ran felt strongly about a woman's passivity in the act of
Kiddushin - any active role on her part, whether the amira or otherwise,
seems to cause the maaseh kiddushin to be suspect (the Rashba
notwithstanding re: asukin be'oso inyan). Why?

Which leads to an interesting point: R. Shmuel Kamenetsky Shlit'a asked my
son on his farher in Philadelphia what comes first in Kiddushin: the amira
or the nesina? The answer is that, based on the Rashba, the amira must come
first since the kiddushin is valid in a case of asukin be'oso inyan: the
amira forms the birur upon which the maaseh kiddushin is based. Which raises
the question: is the kallah's amira in R. Berman's wedding ceremony before
or after the ring is placed on her finger? One could argue that although
there might be problems with a woman's amira before the maaseh kiddushin,
after the maaseh kiddushin any amira on her part  would be post facto:  the
chalos kiddushin will have already taken place.

As far as no one paskening like the Ran, when it comes to issues as serious
as ishus (no pun intended), one generally attempts to take into account even
minority opinions. If indeed R. Berman's ceremony is suspect only according
to a daas yachid, I don't think that there is a serious posek out there who
would discount the Ran's shita when it is so easy to solve the problem by
simply having her keep quiet!

Arnie Lustiger

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:21:59 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
writes:
> I'm not sure of that. After all, if there had been no Kiddushin, the fact
that nisuin did not take place would be irrelevant.

Nisuin not taking place, in the absence of kiddushin, and in the presence
of reductio ad absurdum, means every man is chayav in every single woman's
mezonos. Obviously, the kiddushin, with the concomitant chiyuv nisuin in twelve
months, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for chiyuvei she'er k'sus
ve'onah. When the twelve months have passed, the Rabbanan (not the Torah, as
you had written) imposed a chiyuv parnasa notwithstanding the lack of nisuin.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 02:34:52PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:          When the twelve months have passed, the Rabbanan (not the Torah, as
: you had written) imposed a chiyuv parnasa notwithstanding the lack of nisuin.

IIRC, midin k'nas, no?

This would mean that it's not an intrinsic part of eirusin, but a penalty
against delaying nisuin.

-mi

From: Arnold Lustiger <alustig@erenj.com>
> In the interesting discussion here surrounding the Ran's shita, I have not
> seen a clear exposition of the Ran's sevara: why does he need for the woman
> to be "hefker" in order to effect the maaseh kiddushin?

The Ran seems to be very concerned with "Ke See'lo'kach".

> As far as no one paskening like the Ran, when it comes to issues as serious
> as ishus (no pun intended), one generally attempts to take into account even
> minority opinions. If indeed R. Berman's ceremony is suspect only according
> to a daas yachid, I don't think that there is a serious posek out there who
> would discount the Ran's shita when it is so easy to solve the problem by
> simply having her keep quiet!

I would like to expand this point a tad, harking back to what I wrote this
morning and to an earlier thread here on "negative mesorah" - 'twould seem
that there is a negative mesorah in Am Yisroel for a woman to be silent
during the ma'aseh kiddushin. This, despite the fact that requiring a clear
expression of her da'as would eliminate many potential complications. I
mentioned earlier the Ba'al Ha'Tanya having an explanation of this mesorah
al pi kabbalah. It may also be that the mesorah is, in fact, based on a
chashash of a complication due to the Ran's defintion.

KT,
YGB

amongst today's posekim - what is the deen of the karites? are they jewish /
safek jew (if there is such a thing)?

TIA

> amongst today's posekim - what is the deen of the karites? are they jewish / 
> safek jew (if there is such a thing)?
     
This is an important question and much discussed in the rishonim.  I once heard 
R. Ovadiah Yosef talk about this and, IIRC, he said that they are not considered
Jewish.  Nafka mina whether we are choshesh for mamzeirus after their 
conversion.

I'm sure he has a teshuvah on it with many, many, many sources.

Gil Student

Other than R' Moshe, does anyone have mekorot for the appropriate recitation
for both the shatz and the kahal where their nusach differs from the nusach
of the tzibbur. In particular I'm interested in secific elements of tfila(eg
kadish). What about the situation where the nusach is to follow the nusach
of whoever is the shatz(so that shacharit might be ashkenaz and musaf edot
hamizrach)?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Rashi explains that Korach opposed the appointment of Elitzaphan and therefore
chose to rebel. The whole episode really occurred earlier when the appointment
took place (Ibn Ezra, Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi), and was placed here because
of the smichus haparshiyos to tzitzis, which was the vehicle used by Korach
to argue with Moshe. (Rashi only explains smichus haparshiyos when things
are out of order, see beg. of Shlach as well).

If this is correct, what's pshat in rashi 16:14 where Rashi refers to the
gezeirah to die in the midbar bec. of the meraglim episode - the rebellion
of Korach occurred much earlier?

>Other than R' Moshe, does anyone have mekorot for the appropriate recitation 
>for both the shatz and the kahal where their nusach differs from the nusach of 
>the tzibbur. In particular I'm interested in secific elements of tfila(eg 
>kadish). What about the situation where the nusach is to follow the nusach of 
>whoever is the shatz(so that shacharit might be ashkenaz and musaf edot 
>hamizrach)?
     
The Aruch HaShulchan in his introduction to Choshen Mishpat says that it is not 
derech eretz to daven a different nusach (presumably biychidus) than the shul's 
(although he points out that it doesn't really matter).  The Pe'as HaShulchan 
(in the beginning where he discusses general issues) says that it is biblically 
forbidden to daven a different nusach.  The Sha'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah 
discusses this in the halachos of shemoneh esreh.  He says that a shatz should 
daven his own nusach biychidus and the shul's for chazaras hashatz.  R. Menashe 
Klein comes to the same conclusion in his Halachos Ketanos.  My rav concurred.

Gil Student

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]