The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
16

The Gemara (Gittin 81b) learns that according to Beis Hillel, witnesses on the seclusion are like witnesses of the actual action. That is, watching the couple walk into a room together is enough for Kiddushin. The Rambam (Ishus 3:5) writes as follows: וְאִם קִדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי אוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְאֹרֶסֶת לִי אוֹ הֲרֵי ...


13

That specific formulation is certainly not necessary. The Gemara (Kiddushin 5a) has several variant formulations: כיצד בכסף? נתן לה כסף או שוה כסף ואמר לה "הרי את מקודשת לי", "הרי את מאורסת לי", "הרי את לי לאינתו"-- הרי זו מקודשת How does [betrothal through] money work? He gives her money or monetary equivalent and says to her "הרי את מקודשת לי" (...


12

The Minhag is mentioned in sources as early as the Teshuvas HaGeonim (Harkavy no. 65) and the Zohar, quoted by the Rama in Even Ha'Ezer 27:1. It is indeed a Minhag, and is quoted as such in many places (such as here, the Nitei Gavriel) The Rogotchover in his commentary to Rambam Ishus 3:1 gives the custom a creative halakhic basis: today, when Kiddushin and ...


12

The Ritva in Kiddushin 43a brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group). מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים ...


11

1. Where does the principle of halachic marriage annulment (afka'inhu) apply? There are five Talmudic cases where this principle is invoked: A man betrothed (eirusin) a minor (rabinically) and was attempting to finalize the marriage (nissuin) once she reached majority. Before he did so, a second man seized her, and seemingly betrothed her on a biblical ...


9

This question was posed to R. Moshe Feinstein by R. Ephraim Greenblatt in 1969, and is recorded in Igros Moshe E.H. 3:18. In the first paragraph he explains that the kiddushin is still effective even with a double-ring-ceremony: בדבר אלו שאחר שהחתן קדש בטבעת את הכלה נתנה גם הכלה להחתן טבעת ואמרה הריני מקודשת לך או אתה מקודש לי ודאי לענין הקידושין מאחר ...


8

Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a ...


7

R' Elchonon Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim (Kesuvos 74a) brings this question from R' Akiva Eiger, and explains how the Kiddushin of Biah is fundamentally different from Kessef and Shtar, and why that has ramifications with Shlichus and Tnai. Others (source to follow in edit, bli neder) explain that Kiddushei Biah is not just an arbitrary maaseh kinyan (like ...


7

Rambam's son, R. Avraham, as cited in Kesef Mishne, end of Ishus 1:1, answers that the command is to marry with kidushin and nisuin, which is why Rambam refers to even the first part as a mitzva, meaning the start of one, but doing the first part alone doesn't do a mitzva. KM implies by his wording, q.v., that the main part of the dual mitzva is the second ...


7

Chatam Sofer Yoreh De'ah 134 writes pretty definitively that paper money is considered money for virtually all purposes: אבל גדר המטבע הוא שגזר המלך עליו שתצא ומי שממאן מלמכר וליקח באותו המטבע יחייב ראשו למלכות ... ואין חילוק אם יהי' זהב או כסף או נייר The definition of a coin is that which the king has decreed to be legal tender such that anyone who ...


6

Rav Asher Weiss has a teshuvah about use of paper money for pidyon ha-ben. The basis for the question is that the Gemara (Bechoros 51a) states that one may not use shtaros for pidyon ha-ben because they are not "themselves money" (gufan mamon). He cites four views about the status of paper money today: הנה נחלקו האחרונים בדין כסף בזה"ז אם הוי גופו ממון ...


6

Tosafos in several places explain that we say k'das Moshe v'yisrael by marriage because marriage is effective contingent upon the approval of the Sages. In certain instances where the Sages disapprove of certain actions, they render the marriage as if it had never occurred. Gittin 33a (My emphasis) ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא בטל גיטא ומשום מה כח ב"ד יפה ...


5

No. The Rambam writes (Ishus 10:6[7]): וחכמים הם שתיקנו כתובה לאישה, כדי שלא תהיה קלה בעיניו להוציאה The sages are the ones who established a Kesuba for a wife, in order that he should not regard it as easy to divorce her. He also doesn't list the requirement of Kesuba in Sefer HaMitzvos as the Mitzvah of Kiddushin. As to why he terms it that way,...


5

The Gomara discusses this (Kedushin 46a). This would only present a problem if it was stipulated that kedushin should only take effect at a later date and in the meanwhile the food is eaten (or becomes stale ect.). For a normal kedushin, effective immediately, what happens to the kesef kedushin (be it food, money or something else) after the kedushin is ...


5

Rama, Even Haezer 28:17, in my own loose translation: A guest sitting in someone's home who takes his portion of food and weds with it — she is wed. However, Bes Sh'muel there cites Bach and Taz as saying that marriage is effected only misafek (possibly).


5

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 ...


5

There are two issues at play here. 1) Who actually saw the event. 2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law. Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses. However, the mesader kiddushin is ...


5

The Rambam writes how the Minhag of Klal Yisrael is to use Kesef or Shaveh Kesef, not Shtar; although, shetar is also an option. Rav Hershel Schachter (Kiddushin 5777 - Pesichah) quotes Prof. Simcha Assaf (from a book he found in his father's library) who thinks this is one of the Rambam's attacks on the Karaites, emphasizing how we believe in Torah Shebaal ...


5

The simple answer is that the eidei kiddushin witness the chupa, bideken and yichud, which between them constitute nissuin too. However, there is very convincing argument that nissuin does not require eidim lkiyum. Although by all chaluyos of dovor sh'berva we need eidim lkiyum (like gerushin and kiddushin, and others), there are two reasons why nissuin is ...


4

Even if there's no prohibition touching a penuya tehorah1 (single girl), these two cases have some sources which could indicate an issur. Arusa That very passage in masseches kalla states without sheva brachos a kallah is אסורה כנדה and this is quoted by Shu"t HaGeonim Shaarei Tzedek (4:4:24), Rashi Kesubos (7b) and many other sources. It is forbidden to ...


4

The Tosafot HaRosh is in Yevamot (34a) quoting R. Meir of Rothenburg. (Though in a resp. by R. Chaim of Vienna, son of the 'Ohr Zarua', (§164, beginning) he claims that RMR reconsidered his position.)


4

If it is at the time of wedding, under the chupa, it's good. Mishna in maaser sheni 4.7 היה מדבר עמה על עסקי גיטה וקדושיה ונתן לה גיטה וקדושיה ולא פרש רבי יוסי אומר דיו, רבי יהודה אומר צריך לפרש Bartenura שעסוקים באותו ענין ומתוך אותם הדברים עמד וגירש או קידש אין צריך לפרש, והלכה כרבי יוסי.‏ Gemara kiddushin 6a אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל והוא ...


3

Kiddushin is fundamentally the act of the groom taking the bride, not the other way around or both ways. Hence, a double ring ceremony under the Chuppah would undermine the very mechanics of Kiddushin and is prohibited. Doing so is also a violation of the Torah’s mandate not to imitate non-Jewish practices. (Iggerot Moshe (Even HaEzer vol. 3 Siman 18 and 25, ...


3

I realize that both msh210 and IsraelReader already gave answers based on this source, but I think that neither one explained it fully/properly, so I would like to attempt to answer it myself. This question was asked to R. Avraham the son of Rambam. This was his answer: Birchas Avraham # 44 ואותה הקושיא שהקשית על עיקר דבריו לא קשיא עליה שבמנין המצוות ...


3

Your question 2 is predicated on a reading of the word כשר as referring to proper spiritual value, and therefore middot. I do not believe that that interpretation is correct. Here is Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn (author of the sefer Daat Torah) correctly translating the Rambam under discussion. Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 3:19): Similarly a man should not marry of a ...


3

The straight forward answer is provided by the Maggid Mishna that this establishes what constitutes a marriage for non-Jews. The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Likkutei Sichos Vol. 39 p. 30ff) adds that this also establishes something about the nature of marriage - that it is fundamentally about a man and woman living together and not an acquisition like property (as ...


3

The source for Kiddushin is the Talmud Kiddush 65b. This is not a universal opinion, (even in Halacha, see SA EH 42:2) as some allow for one witness if both agree - at least to not ignore the Kiddushin. The distinction between money (since the source for requiring two witnesses is money) is described in the Talmud - because it obligates third parties. That ...


3

Step One: The Torah talks about "should a man take a woman ..." (Deut. 24:1) which the rabbis interpret as kiddushin. The couple is therefore absolutely not married (at least via kiddushei kesef) unless he gives her a ring (or other item of value), before two kosher witnesses. Age-old practice is to do it under a chupah, though occasionally a couple may opt ...


3

See Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 55:1 (translation from Sefaria): הארוסה אסורה לבעלה מדברי סופרים כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה והבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו מכין אותו מכת מרדות: הגה ואפי' בייחוד אסורים ולכן ארוס שהוא עם ארוסתו בבית א' מברכין ז' ברכות פן יתייחדו (מרדכי פ"ק דכתובות) וי"א דאין להם לדור ביחד שלא יקוצו זה בזה (כל בו) ואפי' בשדוכין בלא אירוסין יש לחוש (...


3

Other answers have explained the possible logic for the exclusion. I would like to point out that in fact this whole idea is only the view of the Ritva, and was not accepted by most Rishonim. In fact, the Chasam Sofer writes that even if one of the two 'designated' witnesses was found to be invalid, there is no need for new kiddushin as the other people ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible