tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post8492941820917024303..comments2023-12-27T03:40:39.548-05:00Comments on Mah Rabu מה רבו: The Wedding... Part 2BZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-16864785166073804802010-07-21T18:27:27.838-04:002010-07-21T18:27:27.838-04:00Desh writes:
The couple can't have marital rel...Desh writes:<br /><i>The couple can't have marital relations after kiddushin, and probably shouldn't before kiddushin, but can just once, to effect kiddushin?</i><br /><br />Yes, and the Rambam says precisely this at Hilchot Ishut 10:1.<br /><br /><i>Seems quite weird.</i><br /><br />Indeed.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-35087353621597512872010-07-21T13:29:43.297-04:002010-07-21T13:29:43.297-04:00Another question: How does this:
The mekudash/mek...Another question: How does this:<br /><br /><i>The mekudash/mekudeshet is not only biblically prohibited from having sex with anyone other than the mekadesh/et, but is rabbinically prohibited from having sex even with the mekadesh/et (i.e. with his/her new spouse) until nisuin takes place. This is a prohibition that is activated at the time of kiddushin[.]</i><br /><br />jibe with the idea of kiddushin b'viah? The couple can't have marital relations after kiddushin, and probably shouldn't before kiddushin, but can just once, to effect kiddushin? Seems quite weird.Deshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11807750933841252508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-52637712960110327312010-07-21T07:32:37.651-04:002010-07-21T07:32:37.651-04:00Desh-
It seems to me that kiddushin isn't the ...Desh-<br />It seems to me that kiddushin isn't the right structure for what they're looking for. If there's any Jewish precedent for open marriage, or for marriage to more than one other person, I guess it would be the male half of pre-Rabbeinu-Gershom marriage. So what they'd want isn't kiddushin x2, but is kiddushin x0, or looking at it the other way, non-kiddushin x2.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-24368601305882692272010-07-21T07:31:36.031-04:002010-07-21T07:31:36.031-04:00JXG writes:
I don't know if nisu'in is rea...JXG writes:<br /><i>I don't know if nisu'in is really as amorphous as you suggest. There are lots of definitions of what it is among the rabbis. [...] Also, at least at my wedding, I (as the groom) had to possess the chuppah and yichud room, so that I would really be bringing Mrs. XG into my home, FSVO "home." </i><br /><br />Right, but does nisuin require all of these definitions (such that any one of them is m'akeiv) or just one of them (and if so, which)? Did you become married when Mrs. XG entered the chuppah, or when she entered the yichud room, or is it unclear? That's what I meant by amorphous.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-74789981667450321492010-07-21T04:52:42.807-04:002010-07-21T04:52:42.807-04:00Also, it's not "perfectly fine ... for a ...Also, it's not "perfectly fine ... for a married man to have affairs with unmarried women." <br /><br />It isn't punishable as being a violation of any specific prohibition. But it clearly falls under the general commandment of "Thou shalt not be a sleazebag."JXGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-33573312093058103582010-07-21T04:44:28.894-04:002010-07-21T04:44:28.894-04:00I don't know if nisu'in is really as amorp...I don't know if nisu'in is really as amorphous as you suggest. There are lots of definitions of what it is among the rabbis. One, which is done at all Orthodox weddings, is that the groom cover the bride with a veil. This could probably be extended to the egalitarian model at the cost of looking ridiculous.<br /><br />Also, at least at my wedding, I (as the groom) had to possess the chuppah and yichud room, so that I would really be bringing Mrs. XG into my home, FSVO "home." I did this via chalipin from my father-in-law, who was the effective renter of the wedding hall for the evening, because his name was on the contract. I'm fairly certain we have a wedding photo of him lifting my handkerchief.JXGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-73576954371742993992010-07-20T10:08:56.376-04:002010-07-20T10:08:56.376-04:00But the bottom-line essence of kiddushin as marita...<i>But the bottom-line essence of kiddushin as marital exclusivity is uncontroversial to us and to most people. In fact, we thought it was so important that it should be multiplied by two, so that both partners are subject to kiddushin, and both partners have a requirement of monogamy at the level of a Torah commandment. </i><br /><br />Well, I know some people for whom that would be "controversial". I have friends for whom a committed relationship among a group of more than 2 people is their preferred form of marriage, and I have friends for whom an open relationship (where one has a primary marital relationship with one person, which relationship does not come with the expectation of exclusivity) is their preferred form of marriage. Kiddushin, even as reconceptualized here to extend to egalitarian opposite-sex and same-sex couples, doesn't seem to extend to these other types of relationships.<br /><br />Is there a way to include them?Deshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11807750933841252508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-34144328620203139232010-07-19T18:19:14.938-04:002010-07-19T18:19:14.938-04:00Aaron writes:
Or, wait. Is the "intent to eff...Aaron writes:<br /><i>Or, wait. Is the "intent to effect kiddushin" de re or de dicto? In other words, does the mekadesh/et have to say "I am doing this pursuant to the rabbinic concept of kiddushin!" (de dicto) or is it enough to say "I am taking a spouse" (and that concept, in their mind, matches up in fact if not in name with kiddushin)?</i><br /><br />If I'm understanding the distinction correctly (I had to look up those terms), I think it's <i>de re</i>, since one of the canonical options for statements that effect kiddushin is "You are hereby my wife" (with no explicit mention of kiddushin). But we may have to revisit this in Part 5, specifically with regard to whether marriage that is not intended to be kiddushin (either because the couple explicitly decides "we're not doing kiddushin", or because the couple uses the outward forms of kiddushin but they in some way intend something other than the rabbinic concept of kiddushin) requires a get for its termination.<br /><br /><i>So... why not use kiddushin b'viah for the very reasons given?</i><br /><br />So, uh, how do you see this working in practice? Would a wedding have an extra yichud period before the chuppah, while the guests have hors d'oeuvres? Or would kiddushin be a private affair beforehand (just the couple and their two witnesses outside) and the wedding day would be just nisuin?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-84247385894543829282010-07-19T18:06:57.207-04:002010-07-19T18:06:57.207-04:00I didn't realize chuppah was a requirement of ...<i>I didn't realize chuppah was a requirement of nisuin. Does that mean that kiddushin does not require the chuppah?</i><br /><br />"Requirement" is a funny word in this context, because nisuin is so amorphous. But yes, chuppah is part of nisuin, not kiddushin ("<i>al yedei chuppah v'kiddushin</i>" from birkat eirusin is referring to two separate things, with "chuppah" as metonymy for nisuin). The Rambam (Hilchot Ishut 10:1) (and others) understands nisuin as the woman leaving her father's house and entering her husband's house, and he also calls this "chuppah". There's an <a href="http://www.shmadigital.com/shma/201006?pg=18&pm=2&fs=1#pg4" rel="nofollow">interesting article</a> about this in the recent kiddushin issue of <i>Sh'ma</i>. The modern "chuppah" is a symbolic representation of this house, and the custom at some weddings where the groom enters the chuppah first and then the bride enters is based on this idea, that she is entering his house. Instead of this, many couples now enter the chuppah together, so that the chuppah represents their shared house. (Ok, in light of this, I partially retract my statement that classical nisuin doesn't need any reconceptualization to be egalitarian.)<br /><br />But kiddushin doesn't require a chuppah - it doesn't even require the physical presence of either member of the couple! Either or both participants in kiddushin may be represented by a shaliach (agent). (I assume this is only for kesef or sh'tar.)BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18242965196421853025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-11912808777762574622010-07-19T15:14:27.136-04:002010-07-19T15:14:27.136-04:00As usual, I enjoy your detailed discussions far ou...As usual, I enjoy your detailed discussions far out of proportion to their practical relevance in my life. I'm looking forward to the rest of this series!<br /><br />Two comments, though. One... is it at all plausible that kiddushin b'viah is a common-law marriage provision? Two people who mean to get married but are halachically ignorant will still, in all likelihood, get up in front of people, announce that they're getting married, and afterward head off to their shared home to have sex that, for them, is distinguished as being the first sexual encounter of their marriage.<br /><br />(Like the rule in American law that a spoken contract is enforceable once some object of value is exchanged-- it's not that handing over a valued object is anything like putting your signature on a piece of paper, it's just a thing that you can be pretty sure will happen between two people who mean to act formally and don't *realize* that they haven't met any of the law's other requirements for forming the contract.)<br /><br />Or, wait. Is the "intent to effect kiddushin" <i>de re</i> or <i>de dicto</i>? In other words, does the mekadesh/et have to say "I am doing this pursuant to the rabbinic concept of kiddushin!" (de dicto) or is it enough to say "I am taking a spouse" (and that concept, in their mind, matches up in fact if not in name with kiddushin)?<br /><br />Two, I don't in fact see what's so ridiculous about the proposals in your second-to-last paragraph. Symbolically distinguishing the betrothal from a business deal is important to a lot of egalitarian people these days, and the process of getting married is already a rare case of sexuality being publicly acknowledged in a way that's both solemn and joyful. Consider the wedding kiss!<br /><br />So... why not use kiddushin b'viah for the very reasons given?Aaronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-35138834241419632922010-07-19T08:28:28.781-04:002010-07-19T08:28:28.781-04:00Thanks for the clear elucidation, by the way. You...Thanks for the clear elucidation, by the way. You write very clearly.JZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12610610.post-9969045032424043632010-07-19T08:27:39.450-04:002010-07-19T08:27:39.450-04:00I didn't realize chuppah was a requirement of ...I didn't realize chuppah was a requirement of nisuin. Does that mean that kiddushin does not require the chuppah?JZnoreply@blogger.com