9

If a woman appoints a shliach (messenger) to receive her get for her, can the shliach be מקדש her with the service he is doing for her by receiving her get for her, and thus the moment he takes her get she is divorced and מקודשת to him simultaniously?

1 - Can get and kedushin happen simultanously?

2 - Can an act of divorce also be an act of marriage?

  • 2
    "I know kidushin B'Hanah works." I think your question post would be stronger if, as background and since not everyone knows what you know, you included an explanation of what that is and a source that it works. (but +1 cool question) – Double AA May 17 '18 at 21:38
1

1 - You can't be מקדש someone with a service, since each fraction of the service is not worth the minimum value needed, a peruta. At the time the "money" is needed it's only a loan, and forgiveness of a loan is not an acceptable act of kedushin. [The rule is "ישנו לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף", Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 38/13.]

2 - Even if you would get around the first issue, there might be a problem of אין שליח לדבר עבירה, you can't make an agent when he will be doing an עבירה. He will be marrying a divorcee without waiting three months after her first marriage [הבחנה]. This is forbidden even when only doing kedushin. (Even Haezer 13) However, if the [דבר עבירה] rule applies to עבירות that are not part of the main service the agent is doing, is a matter of dispute. [See Machneh Efraim, shluchin 9, Imrei Bina , Nedarim 13, etc.]

[3 - I"m wondering if this is a דבר שלא בא לעולם, since kedushin cannot be effective at the time of the man's actions.]

  • I wonder also, that since the Gemara is mesupik if shlichus for a get is a Chav or not (חבין לאדם שלא בפניו) perhaps to then use the shlichus itself is not a zchus but a chav and cant be used for kesef kiddushin – Shoel U'Meishiv May 18 '18 at 6:21
  • The Shulchan Aruch paskens לא נתן לה כלום ואמר לה התקדשי לי בשכר שאעשה עמך כפועל או שאדבר עליך לשלטון אינה מקודשת שישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף והוה ליה מקדש במלוה – פרי זהב May 18 '18 at 11:32
  • @user17260 RE: 2- He is not a שליח at all for the קידושין. He is a שליח ONLY for the get. The קידושין is for himself. So there's no issue of אין שליח לדבר עבירה. RE: 3 - The kidushin could be חל, it would be at the moment he receives the get, which is the moment she becomes no longer an אשת איש so the kedushin can be effective at the time of the man's actions. – RibbisRabbiAndMore May 21 '18 at 12:31
  • 1
    הבחנה is only a derabanan prohibition. The biblical question still holds and is the more interesting one IMO. – Double AA May 22 '18 at 23:23
  • DoubleAA See נודע ביהודה קמא אה"ע סי' ע"ה ד"ה ואם regarding your point. – פרי זהב May 23 '18 at 4:17
0

This is a דבר שלא בא לעולם and does not work at all period.

The shaliach cannot be sent to do kedushin until the woman is divorced already. This is evident from Nazir 12a "Rabbi Yochanan said....a person who is stuck by having sent a shaliach to marry an unknown woman and cannot marry again for maybe the latter is a relative (erva) of the prior, he can still marry a woman who at the time of shlichus lekiddushin was already married. A person can only appoint a shaliach to do something which he himself can do but what he can't do e.g mekadesh a woman who is married, he cannot make a shaliach to do for him." see tosfos kesubos 58b "le-achar" for in depth analysis.

If he can't send a shaliach then he evidently also can't marry this woman personally till the gett happens. so when he says "Harrei at mekudeshes li bekabolas hagett" she is still married so those words are doing a transaction that is לא בא לעולם so when he received the gett it's too late as the favour is done so even if it's worth a Pruta it doesn't work as this is mekadesh bemilve kiddush 47a which doesn't work as the Value/money is already spent.

  • 1
    You wrote A person can only appoint a shaliach to do something which he himself can do.". Then you wrote So this person cannot marry her until she received the gett - - The problem with this is that you pointed out a problem with him being a shliach. In my question he is NOT a shliach for the kedushin, he wants to do the kedushin to marry her HIMSELF! so what does "A person can only appoint a shaliach to do something which he himself can do." have to do with this?? – RibbisRabbiAndMore Jul 24 '18 at 14:29
  • Can you read the article again it should be a bit clearer what I meant @RibbisRabbiAndMore – yosefkorn Jul 24 '18 at 15:44
  • Your post is still a little unclear. Are you saying that since one’s shliach can only do what he can do, since his shliach can’t do it, he can’t do it? First of all, that’s terrible logic. My shliach can’t do semichah on my Karban (Erchin 2a). Does that mean I can’t do semichah on my Karban?! Second of all, even if we accept that logic, that’s only because at the time of the Shelichus, he would be unable to do the Kiddushin, but if he sent him after the Geirushin, it would be fine. So, too, here - it’s after the Geirushin, so it’s fine, potentially. (Con’t) – DonielF Jul 25 '18 at 13:26
  • Third and finally, I question the premise that this is a דבר שלא בא לעולם. Every such case is where the object doesn’t exist, not that it exists and he just isn’t able to get it now. If a person says he’s going to buy a tree and will sell you the rights of the fruit, that’s not לא בא לעולם - that’s he’s unable to sell it. But even if it is an issue, he can just give her the Kiddushin and say that it should come into effect immediately upon her divorce or the death of her current husband. If you throw a tannai on it, the problem vanishes entirely. – DonielF Jul 25 '18 at 13:32
  • @DonielF 1.The gemara nazir 12a says clearly that a person cannot be mekadesh a woman who is married and then says his shaliach can't because of this same reason,I am not making it up. 2. The questioner asked at the same time as the Geirushin the kiddushin should happen. if the trigger of the kiddushin happens after kabbalas haget it's too late as I said it's mekadesh bemilve. 3. You have a very valid point and there are opinions amount the tanaim who suggest your logic but we pasken it is a davar shelo Bo laolam see tosfos kesubos 58b "le-achar" – yosefkorn Jul 25 '18 at 19:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .