Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 26

Fri, 18 Feb 2011

• 1. Ruling of Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Shlomo Amar on Conversions (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (menucha)
• 3. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: geirut for marriage (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: geirut for marriage (menucha)
• 7. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Tum'as Yadayim -- who was gozeir? (Micha Berger)
• 9. kosher stores, rechovi (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: geirut for marriage (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 13. Pinchas ben Yair (avo...@aishdas.org) (mi...@aishdas.org)
• 14. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)

This is a translation of Rav Amar's ruling regarding the army converts.

http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2011/02/ruling-of-rav-ovadia-yosef-an
d-rav.html

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/6f7028ee/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn TK is cholek on the meshane Halachot, but my original question (and 
the reason this post was bounced by the moderators from areivim to 
avodah) is whether this is found anywhere in psak. 
sadly, this strengthens my hypothesis that the long skirt bashing is not 
daas Torah, but rather the inability to accept another (supposedly less 
frum) group's chumrot as such.

full disclosure: the purpose of asking for the sources was for a shiur I 
will beH be giving this week, to a group of women without much 
background, mixed charedi and mO
shabbat shalom,
menucha


T6...@aol.com wrote:

>  
> From: menucha <m...@inter.net.il>
>
>  
> >> Is the restriction against long skirts found anywhere in psak? I seem
> to be finding the opposite.
>
>
> menucha
>
>  
> >>>>>
>  
> If the choice is mini-skirts or floor-length then yes, halavai they 
> should all wear long skirts.  But.
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/c48a1e51/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:33:56PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 16/02/2011 11:49 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But that's not payment, that's qinyan sudar. The *iqqar* is the chasan
>> giving it, not the other way around.

> What is a kinyan sudar?  It's consideration for a contract.  A contract
> without consideration is not binding, so if a contract benefits only one
> party, the other party must give something in return....

How does your theory explain qinyan through shtar or meshichah? Or why
onah wouldn't apply for a qinyan sudar? The sudar doesn't have to be
shaveh perutah, which means that your concept of "benefit" here would
have to be different than the usual notion of hana'ah.

For that matter, a ganav can be qoneh too, given yi'ush and shinui.

I personally think it's like meshichah -- simply forcing the qoneh to
do something rather than just say words.

>> That said, among those O rabbis I know who preside over weddings where
>> the man gets a ring, all of my contacts require the ring be given
>> elsewhere.  If her ring is given as part of an exchange, it risks
>> requiring the net value increase for the bride to be shaveh perutah.

> That's only if both rings are given during the kidushin ceremony, or
> could be mistaken as being so given...

I don't know why you think you can tell me what my unnamed LORs hold. But,
I was speaking of mesadrei qiddushin who are chosheshim for such a
mistake if done under the chupah even after qeri'as hakesuvah.

R' Moshe's language is similar, as I noted in my previous post.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

<What is a kinyan sudar?  It's consideration for a contract.  A contract
without consideration is not binding, so if a contract benefits only one
party, the other party must give something in return.  In civil law this
is usually "one dollar and other valuable consideration", or some similar
formula; in halacha it's a physical object, classically a handkerchief,
and nowadays often a pen or a gartel.  There's no reason it can't be a
ring.>      Consideration in the above sense is not a halachic concept
(or should I say "not a halachic consideration"?)  A shtar mattana has
none; hagbaha, meshicha, chazaka and kinyan chatzeir have none; even kinyan
sudar, strictly speaking, has none, since the utensil in question need not
be shave p'ruta, and according to one opinion, should be the seller's, not
the buyer's.  Kinyan is an indication of g'mirus da'as, of an acceptance by
the parties of the finality of the transaction, and it is that acceptance
of finality which effects transfer of ownership.      Kinyan sudar need not
have an object going from buyer to seller.  A third party can "give" an
object to the seller to effect the sale, and it is valid; see Choshen
Mishpat 195:3.	("give" is in quotes, because it is a mattana al m'nas
l'hachazir.)  Thus, when the eidim are m'kabeil kinyan from the choson,
nothing of the kalla's is being given.	On her behalf, the rav gives his
own object to the choson to "seal the 
 deal," but the object is never hers. EMT
____________________________________________________________
Kill Your Wrinkles
Mom Reveals Shocking $5 method for erasing wrinkles&#46;&#46;&#46;Doctors hate her
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d5e73d912a49327787st03vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/349f211f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> In principle such candidates should not be accepted for giyur,
> because we're afraid that if the marriage breaks up ch"v they'll
> go back to their old ways.

And yet, for reasons which I still don't understand, when Machlon and
Kilyon died, Naami ENCOURAGED Rus and Orpah to go back to their old ways.
Even if the conversion was "al tenai" or some other sort of
quasi-conversion, why would Naami try to get it nullified?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Dermatologists Hate Her
Local Mom Reveals $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles. Shocking Results Exposed
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d5e806adae23454389st01vuc

see Tzitz Eliezer 17,42
shabbat shalom
menucha

>And yet, for reasons which I still don't understand, when Machlon and
>Kilyon died, Naami ENCOURAGED Rus and Orpah to go back to their old
>ways. Even if the conversion was "al tenai" or some other sort of
>quasi-conversion, why would Naami try to get it nullified?
>
>Akiva Miller
>
>____________________________________________________________
>  
>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> ... But if you listen to the ketuba and pay attention to what
> is said, you will hear the final operative phrase: "and we have
> acquired [ukenina] from....our groom, for Mrs....this virgin,
> as all that is written and explained above, with an object that
> is fit to be used for acquisitions [bemana dechasher lemiknaya
> beih".   That means the witnesses, acting in the bride's name
> and on her behalf, gave the groom something of value in return
> for his commitments in the ketuba.

Please explain to me how "we have acquired FROM our groom" means "GAVE the groom something."

My understanding has been that when the kinyan sudar occurs, it is a legal
procedure which gives legal force to his commitments in the ketuba, and
that it is not in any sense a sort of sale or exchange of goods, as is
being depicted in this thread. It is roughly equivalent to a handshake,
except that the kinyan sudar is native to the halachic process and the
handshake was imported from elsewhere.

Am I mistaken? Is some sort of exchange taking place? Is some sort of exchange *required* to take place?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d5e910ed2834479d8st02vuc

I thought the gezeira that the unwatched unwashed hand is tamei dated
all the way back to Shelomo (Shabbos 14b).

This morning I was learning Sunday's daf Y-mi, and the topic got to the
laws passed the day Beis Shammai dominated the head count in Chanania
ben Chizqyiah ben Garon [sic]'s attic -- Shabbos 1:4, vilna 9a-b.
Top of 9b, second word, "vehayadayim". Qorban ha'Eidah explains it
as "lefei shayadayim asqanos heim..." Isn't this Shelomo's gezeira?

Similarly, the gezeira that a baal qeri shouldn't learn Torah was by
Anshei Keneses haGdolah -- but that was ein hatzibbur yachol laamod bah
(mishnah on Shabbos 20b, c.f. 22a).

(Pause: The typical baal qeri couldn't handle refraining from learning.
Wow! Back to the subject...)

Y-mi 8a lists "halakhos baal qeri".

I'm wondering what these halakhos are, in contrast to the failed gezeira
that well predates Batei Hillel veShammai.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At 05:51 AM 2/18/2011, Rn Toby Katz wrote:
> >>>>>
>
>
>If the choice is mini-skirts or floor-length then yes, halavai they should
>all wear long skirts.  But.
>
>When nobody wears skirts to the floor, that style is too eye-catching to be
>  modest.    It may be that in Israel it has become so common  among the DL
>in recent years that it is no longer attention-getting, but  that is
>certainly not the case in the US.  And obviously that  style is 
>still considered
>too eye-catching to be modest in charedi  neighborhoods in Israel.  I would
>add that the women whom my mother  calls the "Shmatta Ladies" -- the ones who
>ostentatiously shroud themselves in  black from head to foot -- are immodest
>in the most profound sense of the  word.  Tznius means when you walk down
>the street you look normal and  nobody gives you a second glance.
>
>
>--Toby Katz

Some of the uniforms worn by Bais Yaakov girls here in Brooklyn have 
pretty long skirts.

As far as "Tznius means when you walk down the street you look normal 
and  nobody gives you a second glance." I do not think that this is 
possible today. Since most people walking in the street no longer 
"look normal,"  anyone who does will most certainly call attention to 
herself! >:-}

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/e08dd9a6/attachment-0001.htm>

On 18/02/2011 9:21 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> In principle such candidates should not be accepted for giyur,
>> because we're afraid that if the marriage breaks up ch"v they'll
>> go back to their old ways.
>
> And yet, for reasons which I still don't understand, when Machlon and
> Kilyon died, Naami ENCOURAGED Rus and Orpah to go back to their old
> ways. Even if the conversion was "al tenai" or some other sort of
> quasi-conversion, why would Naami try to get it nullified?

Who says they had undergone any sort of giyur?  As I understand it,
M and K intermarried.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 18/02/2011 5:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:04:03PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> So I went to IM EH 3:18 to check, and I can reassure you that they
>>> reproduced the first paragraph of that teshuvah accurately. At least,
>>> any differences were more subtle than my ability to notice.

>> I didn't deny that they reproduced the text accurately.  But the
>> commenter, and the blog owner, seriously misrepresented what it says.
>> The proverb says harotze leshaker yarchik eduso, but apparently this
>> doesn't always apply.  One can present the Hebrew text that will
>> rebut ones claims, and rely on people not to check.

> I don't know what you mean. The article says that RMF "clearly and
> unambiguously writes that it is assur for the bride to give the groom
> a ring under the Chuppah."

No, he doesn't.

> The teshuvah opens
>      Bedevar eilu she'achar shehachasan qideish betabaas es hakalah
>      nasnah gam hakalah lehachasan tabaas
>      ve'amrah "Hareini mequdeshes lakh" o "atah mequdah li"...

> So it starts out talking about giving the groom a ring with some
> delcaration. But in the section I refered to, RMF continues
>      Nami nir'eh
>      de'asur la'asos kein beshe'as hachupah belo amirah

> 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*...".

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.
This is not just a pshat I'm reading into the text, it's explicit in the
text itself, and it cannot be read any other way.   The commenter calling
himself "Sydney rabbi" and the AJN Watch blogger himself are guilty at
the very least of carelessly reading the teshuvah with a predetermined
agenda, and seeing only what they wanted to see.  They've latched on to
a peripheral detail (the giving of a ring) and missed the main point
(the pretence of kiddushin).



On 18/02/2011 10:31 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> ... But if you listen to the ketuba and pay attention to what
>> is said, you will hear the final operative phrase: "and we have
>> acquired [ukenina] from....our groom, for Mrs....this virgin,
>> as all that is written and explained above, with an object that
>> is fit to be used for acquisitions [bemana dechasher lemiknaya
>> beih".   That means the witnesses, acting in the bride's name
>> and on her behalf, gave the groom something of value in return
>> for his commitments in the ketuba.

> 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.

> My understanding has been that when the kinyan sudar occurs, it is a
> legal procedure which gives legal force to his commitments in the
> ketuba

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).

> and that it is not in any sense a sort of sale or exchange of goods,

It's a kinyan chalifin, i.e. exchange.  (Note that this should not be
confused with the "kinyan *agav* sudar", which applies when there are
physical goods being transferred, and whose effect is the opposite of
our kinyan here.  In that case the seller gives something to the buyer,
representing the whole package that is being transferred, so that the
buyer can make a meshicha on it.)


On 18/02/2011 8:27 AM, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>> What is a kinyan sudar? It's consideration for a contract. A contract
>> without consideration is not binding, so if a contract benefits only one
>> party, the other party must give something in return. In civil law this
>> is usually "one dollar and other valuable consideration", or some similar
>> formula; in halacha it's a physical object, classically a handkerchief,
>> and nowadays often a pen or a gartel. There's no reason it can't be a
>> ring.

> Consideration in the above sense is not a halachic concept (or should I
> say "not a halachic consideration"?) A shtar mattana has none; hagbaha,
> meshicha, chazaka and kinyan chatzeir have none;

Kinyan sudar is merely one way to effect a halachic kinyan; the methods
you list are *other* ways of doing so, each with its own rules.  But
*this* way works by giving consideration.


> even kinyan sudar, strictly speaking, has none, since the utensil in
> question need not be shave p'ruta

But it must be substantial; if a handkerchief is used it has a minimum
shiur, less than which is merely a rag.  A prutah is the smallest value
which counts as "hana'ah"; here the point is not hana'ah, but merely
that *something* be given in exchange for a commitment to future actions.


> and according to one opinion, should be the seller's, not the buyer's.

That would be a kinyan *agav* sudar, which is a way to make a meshicha
on property that isn't physically present, or that can't be conveniently
lifted. Here there is nothing physical being transferred; instead we are
talking about a promise to do something in the future, so what would the
meshicha be on?


> Kinyan is an indication of g'mirus da'as, of an acceptance by the
> parties of the finality of the transaction

Indeed.  But *how* is that achieved?  There are a number of ways that
can be used, one of which is by giving something in return.


> Kinyan sudar need not have an object going from buyer to seller. A
> third party can "give" an object to the seller to effect the sale,
> and it is valid; see Choshen Mishpat 195:3.

But he is doing so on behalf of the buyer; putting himself in the
buyer's place because zachin le'adam shelo befanav.


> ("give" is in quotes, because it is a mattana al m'nas l'hachazir.)

That's a mere detail, and it needn't be so.  It's usually so because
the owner doesn't want to part with his tie/gartel/pen permanently.


> Thus, when the eidim are m'kabeil kinyan from the choson, nothing of
> the kalla's is being given. On her behalf, the rav gives his own
> object to the choson to "seal the deal," but the object is never hers.

The rov, or the eid?  The manual I consulted insists that the object
should belong to one of the eidim.  But whoever's it is, he's acting
as if he were the kallah, and the object becomes the chosson's property.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

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, kennethgmil...@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
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I've shared a document with you:

Pinchas ben Yair
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YYAJjuK4Jmfosu9
gn_obJtLW44rl5ZJH9wGnZQLDwY/edit?hl=en

It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this  
document, just click the link above.

I'm working on a comparison of versions of the "ladder" of middos of R'  
Pinchas ben Yair that is made into the backbone of Mesilas Yesharim.

I found five, ignoring the Yalqut Shim'oni so far because it lacks  
a "canonical" edition: Yerushalmi, Bavli (with and without Mesuras haShas  
emendations), Kalah Rabbasi and MY.

Interestingly, none of them match.

Pleaese take a look at what I have so far and comment.

-micha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/99f210b8/attachment-0001.htm>

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, kennethgmil...@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
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 26
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."