💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Shulchan%20Arukh%2C%20Even… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:21:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
31 [1] Kiddushin (the initial "acquisition" part of marriage) may not be performed with less than the equivalent of a perutah. Despite this, if he acquired a wife with an unspecified object, he does not need to first assay it to determine that it is worth a perutah, rather if is indeed worth a perutah, she is acquired. Even if he tells her, "Marry me with this item worth 50 zuz," and they did not first assay it, if it is afterward found to be worth 50 zuz, she is acquired. [2] There are those who say that if he betrothed her with something for which there are no experts able to appraise its value and sometimes people make large mistakes [in its appraisal] such as precious stones and pearls, and he said to her: Become betrothed to me with this stone worth fifty zuz", it needs to be appraised, for she cannot be assured [as to its value]. And there are those who say that even if he betrothed her with a stone and didn't say that it was worth fifty zuz, that it must be appraised.
This is why the custom is to betroth with a ring in which there is no stone.
Hagah: And if he betrothed her with a ring in which there was a stone, or with a regular ring and it turned out to be copper, even though it is not customary to use this for betrothal, we must be concerned that she is betrothed (Bet Yosef citing a responsa of R. Shimon bar Tzemah, and Mordecai, first chapter of Kiddushin).
And even if witnesses under the huppah say that it was gold and it turns out that it was copper, even though according to the law it would seem that she shouldn't be betrothed, even in this case we should rule stringently when it comes to acting (Responsa of Maimonides, end of Laws of Women). And in any case, we have the custom to ask the witnesses under the huppah if the ring is worth a perutah, so that the bride would know that she is betrothed only with something worth a perutah (Orhot Hayyim). We also have the custom to cover the face of modest brides, and they are not so cautious about what they are betrothed with (explained in a responsum of the Rashba). [3] If he betrothed her with food or a vessel or something like this that is worth less than a perutah, she is doubtfully betrothed, lest this thing is worth a perutah somewhere else.
And there are those who say that if he betrothed her with a cooked dish or a vegetable that cannot last or something of this nature, if it was not worth a perutah in that place, she isn't betrothed at all, for this thing cannot go somewhere else before it loses its value and won't be worth a perutah. [4] That which we said that she is betrothed based on the doubt that perhaps this thing is worth a *perutah* [small coin] somewhere else [means that] she requires a *get* [bill of divorce] to permit her to the world. And if he wants to keep her, she needs another betrothal transaction. And if he betrothed her after a full betrothal [by another man], the first should divorce, and the second should marry, but the secound should not divorce, while the first marries.
Rem"a: And this is only when the second one did not come upon her before the divorce, but if he did come upon her, she is thereby forbidden to the first one (Mordechai, first chapter of Kiddushin). And just as she is forbidden to the husband, so she is forbidden to the one who had relations. And see later, Siman 46, Se'if 5. And there are those who say that if she bore a child from the second, and the first had not divorced, the child is kosher. [5] One who says to a woman, "Become betrothed to me with this date. Become betrothed to me with this one. Become betrothed to me with this one," if one of them has in it the value of a *perutah* [small coin], she is thereby betrothed. And if not, she is only betrothed doubtfully, just in case a single date is worth a *perutah* somewhere else. And if he said to her, "Become betrothed to me with this, and with this, and with this," they are all joined, so that if all of them [together] have in them the value of a *perutah*, she is betrothed, and if not, she is only betrothed doubtfully. If she was eating one at a time, if the last one had in it the value of a *perutah*, she is betrothed, and if not, she is only doubtfully betrothed, as those dates that she ate were like a loan, and one who betrothed with a loan - she is not betrothed, and it turns out that only the final date is a betrothal transaction. [6] If he said to her, "Become betrothed to me with these," and she ate them one at a time, the ones that she ate also are joined to [constitute] the value of a *perutah* [small coin], since he had finished all of his words before he fave her anything, so therefore, as soon as he gave her the first one, it reached her hand in the status of a betrothal transaction, and she was eating her own. And it's the same rule if he said "with this and with this," and he had finished all of his words before she accepted them, they all join together, even if she at one at a time. And there is one who disagrees with this. [7] If he said to her, "Let half of you become betrothed to me with half a *perutah* [small coin], and have of you with half a *perutah*," or he said to her "half of you with a *perutah*, and half of you with a *perutah*," or "half of you with a *perutah* today, and half of you with a *perutah* tomorrow," or "your two halves with a *perutah*," or if he said to his friend "your two daughters for my two sons with a *perutah*," or "your daughter is betrothed to me and your cow is sold to me with a *perutah*," or "your daughter is betrothed to me and your land is sold to me with a *perutah*," she is thereby doubtfully betrothed. [8] One who says to a woman, "Become betrothed to half of me," she is thereby betrothed. What is this similar to? To one who says to her, "Be my wife - you and another [woman]," since it comes out that she only has half a man. But if he said, "Half of you is betrothed to me," she is not betrothed, as one woman is not available for two. And similarly, one who says, "You are hereby betrothed to me and to this [man]," she is not betrothed. [9] If he got betrothed to her with less than the worth of a p'rutah, even if he sent her 'sivlonot'(explained as presents, for it is a term of burden and weight, and 'weight' can be found as a term for present, such as "and he carried presents" (Genesis 43, 34) afterwards, they do not suspect that he sent those 'sivlonot' for the purpose of betrothal. But if he got betrothed to her with less than the worth of a p'rutah, and afterwards he had intercourse with her, unspecified, in the presence of witnesses, she will need a divorce, since it is certain that he had intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. gloss: The same law applies with a child who got betrothed and then grew up with her. She will need a divorce, because he certainly had intercourse when he became grown up for the purpose of betrothal (TUR, section 43 and responsa of the ROSH, rule 35). And only in this [type] of case, because every person knows that the betrothal of a child or with less than the worth of a p'rutah is nothing, and so he had intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. But in a situation where there is room for a mistake, a new betrothal is needed (Responsa Maimoni, end of Nashim), as it is explained in this section, article 4:
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: CC0