5

I've witnessed the giving of a get, and it has many steps (the below bulletpoints are adapted from here). For example:

  • the woman accepts the folded get into her cupped hands grasping it.
  • The woman then raises her hands, while holding the get, about 30 centimeters high. This act called ‘hagbahah (raising)’, serves as a symbolic legal act of transfer of ownership.
  • After the hagbahah, the woman places the get under her left armpit, next to her heart
  • takes 2-3 steps forwards
  • turns around, and retraces her steps (walking a total of 4 amot)

Presumably all of this is done because we're Machmirim and want to make sure the giving of the get was chal.

Why aren't we also this level of machmir for kinyan kiddushin? Namely, instead of just putting the ring on the kallah's finger, why doesn't she also do all these additional kinyanim that we do for a get?

  • 9
    As a guess, if the kiddushin is not chal, there are no terrible consequences - they just live together without kiddushin. If the get is not chal and she remarries, she is committing adultery and any kids would be mamzerim. – Joel K Jan 10 at 8:41
  • 2
    וכתב לה ספר כריתות ונתן בידה it's not just a kinyan that we need – Double AA Jan 10 at 10:24
  • 1
    Since when are we not Machmir on Kiddushin? It's been a few years, but I know that there were a lot of little 'things' that I was told to do (i.e. made a kinyan before the Tenaim, put the ring on a specific finger, made sure that the Eidim were specifically looking when I handed over the Kesuba, etc) that certainly wouldn't invalidate the marriage if they weren't done. The steps may be different, but we do do a lot of actions by Kidushin that are there specifically to follow many Machmir opinions. – Salmononius2 Jan 10 at 17:17
  • @dou I'm not clear on which aspect you are saying is unique to gittin from the verse. My understanding is that "vnasan byada" applies to kiddushin as well via the hekesh, and I dont think the OP was asking why we dont use a shtar kiddushin – Loewian Jan 10 at 18:48
  • @Loewian Consider EH 138:1. Clearly you can Mekaddesh by saying take this ring from the floor as your Kiddushin – Double AA Jan 10 at 18:57
4

As noted by @joelk in a comment, if the kiddushin (engagement) are not valid, there is a bitul aseh (annulment of a positive commandment; see Rambam Laws of Marriage 1:1-2) or, at worst*, no marriage (see, e.g. here). If, however, the giving of the get is invalid, every subsequent act of intimacy between the woman and any future "husband" is a capital crime for both, and any descendant that results from such act is a mamzer, forbidden to marry into Israel for all future generations. As such, we try to (at least l'chatchila - ideally) keep stringencies and/or minority opinions, to avoid complications down the road.

[In addition (and as per a comment from @DoubleAA), see, e.g. Rabbi Shmuel Hain who draws a more fundamental distinction between the act of kiddushin and that of divorce. Thus, according to some opinions (see e.g. Avnei Miluim 30:1 and Mishne L'Melech Ishut 1:1) kiddushin may be valid even in cases where gittin are not.]


*except in the very unlikely scenario where she accepts kiddushin from another man while assuming she is already married - though even then, the chupa alone, and/or subsequent consummation of the "first" marriage, may have been enough effect the first marriage, thereby preempting the second (id).

  • 2
    Do you have a source for your claim that this is the reason for the observations of the OP? – Double AA Jan 10 at 16:07
  • @DoubleAA If the OP was actually asking for a separate source distinguishing each of the observations individually, I would think the question would be closed as too broad(?) – Loewian Jan 10 at 18:52
  • The OP didn't ask for sources. I did. Perhaps he believes you that this fact you point out is relevant. – Double AA Jan 10 at 18:58
-1

Years ago I saw the Nesivos Shlom explains Har Gegegos using this Ran, Nedarim (30a), s.v. vi’Isha Nami (.ר”ן נדרים (ל (it should answer your question)

אלא כיון שהתורה אמרה כי יקח איש אשה ולא אמרה כי תלקח אשה לאיש לא כל הימנה שתכניס עצמה לרשות הבעל ומש”ה אמרי’ בפ”ק דקידושין (דף ה) דאי אמרה היא הריני מאורסת לך אין בדבריה ממש אלא מכיון שהיא מסכמת לקדושי האיש היא מבטלת דעתה ורצונה ומשוי נפשה אצל הבעל כדבר של הפקר והבעל מכניסה לרשותו הלכך אין אנו דנין בקדושין מצד האשה אלא מצד הבעל

Ran states that the woman must be totally passive. It is the man who acts and takes the wife, not the wife who is acts to have herself taken (it goes without saying that she does not take him as her husband). This requires her not only to not give the object of value, but also to not even make the verbal declaration. All that is needed, indeed all that is allowed, is that she not stand in the way of the man’s act, that she acquiesces to what he is doing. He further elaborates that she must make herself “like an object that is hefker, without an owner,” and this allows the man to take possession of her.

see https://library.yctorah.org/2016/08/kiddushin-ownership-or-partnership-part-5-kinyan-and-kiddushin-in-competition-gemara-and-rishonim/

  • Nice thought, but what with the heiqesh between yetzia and havaya ? And, even in divorce, the man must repudiate and not herself. – yO_ Jan 11 at 8:03
  • The question was "Why aren't we also this level of machmir for kinyan kiddushin? " The answer the Ran would have given is during kiddushin the kallah is to remain passive, which is not necessary at a divorce. – Steven Edelstein Jan 14 at 18:09
  • It is necessary at divorce, because of the heiqesh (passing through the notion), and even just because the Ran would read the same notion from the words in parashat gerushin. – yO_ Jan 14 at 18:29
  • The Hekesh of hava lyetzia does not cannot and will never mean that all things true for marriage will be true for all things divorce, you dont need a glass,chupa,wine,ring or sex at a get – Steven Edelstein 2 days ago

You must log in to answer this question.

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