One of most famous passages in the entire Bible reads: “Moses
commanded us the Torah, a heritage (morashah) for the Congregation of
Jacob” (Deut. 33:4). The Rabbis exegetically interpreted the word
morashah in this passage as if it reads me’orasah (“betrothed woman”),
which teaches that the Torah’s “marriage” to the Jewish People is akin
to a woman’s “marriage” to her husband (Berachos 57a, Pesachim 49b).
In this instance, the word for betrothal is erusin, and cognates of
that Hebrew word appear throughout the Bible in that context (for
example, see Ex. 22:15, Deut. 20:7; 22:23-27; 28:30). Nonetheless,
this essay explores the relationship of the word erusin to a later
Hebrew word for “betrothal” — kiddushin. That word and its derivatives
appear more frequently in the Mishna than do variants of erusin, and,
in fact, the Mishnaic tractate that deals with the laws of betrothal
is entitled Kiddushin. If these two words refer to the same Halachic
procedure, does that make them synonyms? If they are indeed synonyms,
then why does the Bible use one word, and the Rabbis another?
Before we delve into various linguistic insights concerning the words
erusin and kiddushin, a few points about the Halachic conception of
marriage must be clarified. According to halacha, Jewish Marriage is a
two-step process. The first step, known as erusin/kiddushin, involves
the bridegroom “betrothing” his intended wife. At this point, she is
halachically considered his wife, and the prohibition of adultery
comes into full swing. However, the new couple may not yet live
together until the second stage of marriage (called nissuin, which is
effectuated by chuppah).
Thus, when we refer to erusin/kiddushin as “betrothal,” this does not
mirror the Western concept of “engagement” that colloquially refers to
a couple who agreed to marry each other but did not yet do so. Rather,
erusin/kiddushin refers to the first stage of marriage. Some scholars
prefer the term “inchoate marriage,” but it is too cumbersome and
obscure for our purposes. In Talmudic times, what we call “engagement”
was called shidduchin. This is sometimes confusing because in Modern
Hebrew the term erusin refers to a couple formally becoming “engaged”
and declaring their intentions to later get married. However, as Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Ex. 22:16) already clarifies, the earlier
Hebrew term erusin does not refer to this.
In the opening discussion of Tractate Kiddushin in the Babylonian
Talmud (Kiddushin 2b), the Saboraic Sages ask why the Mishna
(Kiddushin 2:1) refers to betrothal as kiddushin instead of using a
Biblical Hebrew term. They answer that the term kiddushin in the sense
of “betrothal” is related to the hekdesh (“consecrated property”), as
one who betroths a woman forbids her from being with anybody else,
just as consecration forbids all people from deriving benefit from the
property that was consecrated.
Rabbi Yitzchak Vana (a Yemenite Kabbalist who died in 1670) writes
that kiddushin relates to hekdesh because just as consecrating
property causes one who misuses that property to violate a more
serious prohibition than previously so, so does betrothing a woman
cause one who illicitly engages her in intimacy to violate a more
serious prohibition than had she been single.
The truth is that according to Biblical law a newlywed couple is
already permitted to live together once the first stage of marriage
(erusin/kiddushin) has been completed. However, the halacha remains
that, by rabbinic fiat, the couple are forbidden to one another until
they complete the second stage of marriage. The Rabbis instituted that
a betrothed woman is forbidden to her husband until he finalizes their
marriage with nissuin (see Kallah 1:1 and Rashi to Kesuvos 8a).
In light of this, Rabbi Alexander Sender Shor (1660-1737) and Rabbi
Elazar Moshe Horowitz (1817-1890) explain the term kiddushin as
implying a procedure akin to hekdesh comes into play only after the
rabbinic enactment by which a betrothed woman becomes forbidden to her
own husband. Accordingly, the Rabbis used the term kiddushin to
accentuate the point that through kiddushin a woman becomes like
hekdesh — forbidden to everyone else in the world (including her
husband). By contrast, since the term erusin is not loaded with this
implication, the Torah uses that term to denote “betrothal.” This
makes sense because Biblical law maintains that a betrothed woman is
permitted to her husband, so she does not resemble hekdesh.
We can offer another, similar reason as to why only the Rabbis use the
term kiddushin and the Bible does not. Rabbi David HaLevi Segal (Turei
Zahav to Even HaEzer 34:2) writes that the mere fact that Jewish
Marriage is a two-step process (commencing with erusin/kiddushin and
finishing with nissuin) imbues it with a special holiness (kedushah)
unseen elsewhere. According to this, we may argue that the Rabbis
coined the term kiddushin for “betrothal” because they were
responsible for instituting this two-step framework, and that
kiddushin is what kicks off the process. On the other hand, from the
Bible’s perspective, “betrothal” is simply called erusin, which
implies nothing about “holiness,” because from the Bible’s perspective
that extra level of holiness which emanates from the two-step process
does not yet exist.
Tosafos(to Kiddushin 7b) mention a halachic difference between one who
effectuates betrothal using the terminology of kiddushin and one who
uses the terminology of erusin. There is a Talmudic principle that
even if a man betroths “half” a woman, the betrothal still goes into
full effect. However, the Tosafists explain that this applies only to
a man who betroths a woman using the terminology of kiddushin. Their
unspoken logic is that the law of kiddushin is comparable to the law
of consecrating an animal (hekdesh). If one consecrates “half” an
animal for sacrificial purposes, the halacha follows that the entire
beast becomes holy. The Tosafists understood that the same is true
concerning kiddushin: If one betroths “half” a woman, then the
kiddushin comes into full effect. However, the Tosafists maintain that
this comparison between the two areas of halachah is true only when
betrothing a woman using the term kiddushin, which is related to
hekdesh. If, however, the groom expressed his nuptial intent using the
terminology of erusin, then this paradigm is not in play and the
betrothal will only take “half” effect (whatever exactly that
entails).
Although the Saboraic Sages mentioned above connect the word kiddushin
to hekdesh, the Tosafists (to Kiddushin 2b) point out that the plain
meaning of kiddushin relates to kiddush in the sense of “preparing” or
“designating” something (e.g. see Ex. 19:10, Num. 11:18). The word
kedeishah (“prostitute”) is a cognate of this root because such a
woman is "set aside" or “designated” for a specific purpose (see Rashi
to Gen. 38:21 and Deut. 23:18). Others understand that the Hebrew word
kedeishah as related to the Akkadian word qadistu, “woman of special
status.” That general definition can apply to both a prostitute and a
wife, leading Professor Shamma Friedman (a member of the Academy of
the Hebrew Language) to entertain this as a possible etymology for the
term kiddushin. Either way, these approaches maintain that kiddushin
is unrelated to “holiness” or “consecration,” per se.
The commentators buttress the Tosafists’ point with two arguments.
First, in the speech act that contributes to the creation of
kiddushin, the groom says to the bride “with this ring, you are
mekudeshet to me…” Rabbi Avraham HaLevi of Barcelona (1235-1303) in
Chiddushei HaRaah (Kiddushin 2b), and Rabbi Yosef Ibn Ezra (1560-1620)
in Atzmot Yosef, both note that if the term mekudeshet was meant in
the sense of “consecration,” then the groom would effectively be
“consecrating” her to himself. But this would mean he is forbidding
her to himself, just like consecrating property renders that property
forbidden! Since this is certainly not the groom’s intention, it must
be that mekudeshet is a term of “preparing” or “designating.”
Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer Asheknazi (1512-1585) argues that,
grammatically-speaking, if the bridegroom means to “sanctify” her, he
should say mukdeshet. The fact that the traditional formula instead
reads mekudeshet indicates that he meant to “set her aside” or
“designate” her as a wife, not to “sanctify” her.
Dr. Michael Satlow suggests that the Mishnaic term kiddushin is
actually a “loanword” from the Greek legal term ekdosis, which refers
to a bride's father "handing over" the girl to her new husband. While
this is a fascinating proposal, it is quite difficult to accept
because "handing over" the bride is actually the definition of nissuin
(see Ketuvos 4:5). It is thus quite problematic to argue that this is
the etymological basis for the term kiddushin. Nevertheless, one could
argue that the Rabbis may have adapted/adopted this Greek word, and
slightly modified its pronunciation and meaning — as they often did
when making use of foreign words.
Let’s now turn our attention to the word erusin andits possible
etymologies. The Yemenite Sage Rabbi Shalom Mansoura of Sanna (d.
1888) explains that erusin is an expression of “tying” (similar to the
English euphemism for marriage, “tying the knot”). Rabbi Yitzchak
Ratzabi offers two ways of explaining this etymology. First, he cites
Rabbi Baurch HaLevi Epstein (1860-1940), who writes that the root of
erusin, ALEPH-REISH-SIN/SAMECH, should be understood as congruent to
the root erez, ALEPH-REISH-ZAYIN, because the letters SIN/SAMECH and
ZAYIN are interchangeable. The latter root refers to something packed
tightly (see Yechezkel 27:24), like the word arizah (“package”) in
Modern Hebrew, so it makes sense that erusin would also refer to the
powerful bonds of matrimony. Rabbi Epstein also notes that erez is
related to aizor (“tight belt”) by way of metathesis, continuing in
the same theme of “tying” something tightly. Alternatively, Rabbi
Ratzabi suggests that Rabbi Mansoura means that erusin is related to
“tying” by way of a simpler metathesis without replacing any of the
letters. If we simply transpose the final two letters of the root
ALEPH-REISH-SIN/SAMECH, then we get ALEPH-SIN/SAMECH-REISH, which
means “tie” or “bind.” A betrothed woman is “tied” to her husband in
the sense that the only way she can marry someone else is if he grants
her a bill of divorce (or dies).
Rabbi Vana argues that the word arusah (“betrothed woman”) is related
to the Hebrew word eres (“poison”), because once a woman is betrothed
to another, then she becomes like a poisonous snake or scorpion in the
sense that anyone who illicitly approaches her is liable for the death
penalty.
Rabbi Ratzabi cites another Yemenite scholar who explains that a
betrothed woman is called an arusah in the same sense that a
sharecropper is called an aris. The sharecropper enters a sort of
partnership with the owner of the field, and thus retains partial
rights to its produce. In a similar vein, a betrothed woman enters
into a partnership with her future husband, who at that point only has
a partial “claim” over her (in that she is now forbidden to commit
adultery), but not a complete entitlement (i.e. if she dies, he does
not inherit her property).
Finally, Rabbi Ratzabi offers two suggestions of his own towards
understanding the etymology of erusin, both of which invoke the
interchangeability of the letter ALEPH with AYIN. He explains that the
root AYIN-REISH-SIN/SAMECH refers to “mixing,” like in the case of
arisah (“dough”) which is mixed/kneaded. In some sense, erusin
(spelled with an ALEPH)also refers to a “mixture” of sorts, as it
represents the joining of man and wife in matrimony. Alternatively,
Rabbi Ratzabi connects the word erusin to eres (“bed”), spelled with
an AYIN, as an allusion to the conjugal reasons for marriage.
