|
Jewish Law |
American Law |
Differences |
|
|
Engagement |
“Kiddushin” or “Erusin” = Bride is given a plain wedding band and says a specific Hebrew phrase. Witnesses are needed. |
Husband gives a diamond ring to his wife to be. No witnesses needed. |
-Kiddushin enacts a legal status in Jewish law. No new status is enacted in American law. |
|
Marriage Ceremony |
“Nissuin” – happens under the chuppah or when the couple is alone together. Witnesses are needed. |
Husband and wife agree to be married before a state official. |
-This is where the legal status changes in American law. In Jewish law, nissuin only strengthen the legal status |
|
Marriage Process |
In the days of the Talmud there could be a year between Kiddushin and Nissuin. Today they occur simultaneously. |
There is usually a significant time period separating engagement and the Marriage Ceremony |
|
|
Death or Divorce |
“Ketubah” – the terms for payment are detailed before the engagement and marriage takes place. Witnesses are needed. |
Divorce – terms are decided on a case by case basis, after a divorce is filed. -Death – A will details inheritance, or common law. |
The three sets of witnesses needed in the marriage process are called "eidai ketuba" "eidai kiddushin" and "eidai yichud."
1. Direct commandments from God to us that need little or no rabbinic interpretation.For example, "peru urivu" - the mitzvah of having children is a direct commandment to mankind, and needs fairly little interpretation about how to fulfill the commandment. This seems clearly to be a Mitzvah D'Oryata.
2. Direct commandments from God to us that need lots of explanation by the Rabbis in order for us to understand how to fulfill the mitzvah. The Biblical commandment itself, even if the instructions are all Rabbinic, still make this a firm Mitzvah D'orayta. An example of this is the mitzvah of tefillin:
In these cases-- the Talmud and later Rabbis usually debate whether these mitzvot are Biblical in Origin -- mitzvot d'orayta -- (ie the Rabbis re-instituted commandments that were around at the time of the Bible) or, if they are mitzvot d'rabanan - Rabbinic laws, and there happens to be support for their laws in a pasuk. We would call this an "asmachta".
It is this third category that we will be discussing with regard to Ketubah and Kiddushin.
4. Finally, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein will posit a 4th type of Biblical Mitzvah -- one where the overall mitzvah is d'orayta - biblical -- but the stated requirements for the mitzvah are m'dirabanan-Rabbinic. For instance, Rav Aharon will say that for those that believe Ketubah is m'dorayta, one can fulfill this mitzvah on a m'doryata level by giving any amount of money. But if you want to also fulfill the m'drabanan aspect of the mitzvah, you must give 200 zuz. It is possible, for instance, that this is how the Rambam thought of the mitzvah of Ketubah.
(טו) וְכִֽי־יְפַתֶּ֣ה אִ֗ישׁ בְּתוּלָ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־אֹרָ֖שָׂה וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ מָהֹ֛ר יִמְהָרֶ֥נָּה לּ֖וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃
(15) If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid, and lies with her, he must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price.
These tangential references to Ketubah and Kiddushin lead to a machloket in the Talmud as to whether these mitzvot are merely “hinted to” in the Torah, but are officially decreed by the Rabbis, or if they are full Biblical laws. (Can you make arguments either way?)
Peru U'revu -- The commandment to have children -- constitutes the only DIRECT commandment that the Bible gives in reference to starting a family:
(a mitzvah d'orayta or a mitzvah d'rabanan)
Rashi vs Ramban;
A Stira (contradiction) in the Rambam
מהר ימהרנה. יִפְסֹק לָהּ מֹהַר כְּמִשְׁפַּט אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – שֶׁכּוֹתֵב לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה וְיִשָּׂאֶנָּה (מכילתא):
ופירוש מהר ימהרנה לו לאשה, שישלח לה סבלונות וצרכי חופה להיות לו לאשה...
And the explanation of "Mahor..." that he sends her savlanut and the things needed for the chuppah (marriage ceremony) in order to make her his wife...
הפילגשים. חָסֵר כְּתִיב, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה אֶלָּא פִּלֶגֶשׁ אַחַת, הִיא הָגָר, הִיא קְטוּרָה (בראשית רבה). נָשִׁים בִּכְתֻבָּה, פִּילַגְשִׁים בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין, בְּנָשִׁים וּפִילַגְשִׁים דְּדָוִד:
0לבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם... ורש"י כתב נשים בכתובה פילגשים שלא בכתובה כדאמר בנשים ופילגשים דדוד בסנהדרין (כא) ואין הדבר כן כי לא תקרא פילגש אלא כשהיא בלא קדושין כי הכתובה מדברי סופרים
And Rashi wrote that wives have a Ketubah, and concubines do not have a Ketubah, as it is written about David's wives and concubines in mesechet Sanhedrein. But this isn't so, for you are called a concubine only if you haven't done Kiddushin, for the Ketubah is from Rabbinic origin (not biblical).
וְצָרִיךְ לִכְתֹּב כְּתֻבָּה קֹדֶם כְּנִיסָה לַחֻפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר. וְכַמָּה הוּא כּוֹתֵב לָהּ. אִם הָיְתָה בְּתוּלָה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ פָּחוֹת מִמָּאתַיִם דִּינָרִים וְאִם בְּעוּלָה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה דִּינָרִים [ד.] וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה. וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ כִּכַּר זָהָב מוֹסִיף.... וַחֲכָמִים הֵם שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ כְּתֻבָּה לָאִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ:
And you have to write a Ketubah before entering the Chuppah (marriage canopy), and afterwards you are allowed to have her as your wife and the groom gives the scribe his payment. And how much should be written (in the ketubah) to be given to her (in the event of divorce or death)? If she is a virgin, no less than 200 dinar, and if she is not a virgin no less than 100 dinar. And this is the essence of the Ketubah. And if he wants to add more money, even a Kikar of Gold he can add... And the Rabbis decreed the Ketubah for the wife so that it shouldn't be easy in the husband's eyes to give her away (to divorce her).
Not to permit harlotry. Deut. 23.17. And this a woman who has a relationship with a man without first attaining a Ketubah or having Kiddushin.
וְכֵן לוֹקֵחַ מִכָּל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל נָשִׁים וּפִילַגְשִׁים. נָשִׁים בִּכְתֻבָּה וְקִדּוּשִׁין. וּפִילַגְשִׁים בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה וּבְלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין. אֶלָּא בְּיִחוּד בִּלְבַד קוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ וּמֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ.
He can take, from anywhere in Israel, wives and concubines; wives being those with a Kesuba (marriage contract) and Kedushin (being sanctified), while concubines are those without a Kesuba and Kedushin. He need only sequester himself with her in private to make her a concubine. She is then permitted to him.
Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein will try to give a harmonious reading of the Rambam.
ומי אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הכי והתניא (שמות כב, טז) כסף ישקול כמוהר הבתולות שיהא זה כמוהר הבתולות ומוהר הבתולות כזה מכאן סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כתובת אשה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים
The Gemara answers: The reason is that we learned that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said elsewhere that the marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if a man marries a woman in Cappadocia, where the currency is more valuable, and he divorces her in Eretz Yisrael, he gives her payment for the marriage contract from the money of Cappadocia. From the fact that he is obligated to pay the marriage contract in the currency of the place where he undertook the obligation, apparently the marriage contract of a woman is (?) an obligation by Torah law.
איש איש לרבות אשת חרש וכו' - נראה דעיקר קרא לא איצטריך אלא לאוסרה לבעל ולבועל ע"י קינוי זה אבל משום לפוסלה מכתובתה לא צריך קרא דהא אפילו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר בפרק בתרא דכתובות (דף קי:) כתובת אשה דאורייתא לאו ממש דאורייתא אלא אית ליה סמך מדאורייתא כדאמרינן התם בפ"ק (דף י.) מכאן סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה אלא תנא דנקט כתובה מילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דעוברת על דת צריכה התראה להפסיד כתובתה:
The Pasuk comes mainly to forbid her both on her husband and to the adulterer by means of the Kinuy; but to disqualify her from receiving her Kesubah does not require a Pasuk. Because even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in the last Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 110:) that 'A woman's Kesubah is d'Oraysa', concedes that it is not really d'Oraysa, only that it has a support from the Torah .As the Gemara says there in the first Perek (Daf 10.) 'From here the Chachamim found a support for a woman's Kesubah in the Torah', and the reason that the Tana mentions 'Kesubah' is to teach us by the way that a woman who transgresses the law requires a warning before losing her Kesubah.
So far we have seen three cohesive approaches by the rishonim --
1. Rashi maintains that Ketubah is a mitzvah m'dioryatah (biblical), and it comes directly from the word "Mohar" by the case of Seduction.
2. Ramban maintains that Ketubah is a mitzvah m'dirbanan (Rabbinic), and explains "Mohar" as referring to a payment to make the wedding.
While the Rambam seems to say in some places it is m'dorayta and in some places m'drabanan. This inconsistancy will be addressed by Rav Aharon later.
3) Now Tosafos comes with a third suggestion -- Ketubah is m'drabanan, and the Rabbis find an allusion "asmachta" or a support for their institution of a Ketubah by way of the "Mohar" payment made to the seduced girl. (what exactly is an asmachta?)
"An additional answer emerges from the Mekhilta de-Rashbi in Shemot 22:15, where the extrapolation from mefateh appears, with the following conclusion: "Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says: a woman's ketuba has no fixed amount from the Torah." Rabban Shimon Ben Gamilel denies the Biblical origins not of ketuba itself, but rather of its specific amount. This Midrash appears to introduce a middle position, that the concept of ketuba has its origins in the Torah, in the verse, "mohar ha-betulot," while the details were instituted by the Sages...
Based on this distinction, we can resolve the Rambam's position, as well. When dealing with a given phenomenon and discussing whether its origins are Biblical, we can address two issues. First, we can inquire as to the phenomenon itself, whether a given concept exists according to Torah law. Secondly, even if we concede that the concept is rooted in Torah law, we can debate whether the specific laws relating to that concept are Biblical.
Correspondingly, we may understand the debate surrounding the origins of ketuba as questioning whether or not this concept, this type of commitment on the husband's part, exists in the Torah. Alternatively, this debate may work on the assumption that indeed such a concept of ketuba exists, only it questions the origins of its details. The Rambam perhaps maintains that the concept of ketuba originates from the Torah, and in fact the ketuba constitutes an integral part of the institution of marriage. After all, in the absence of a ketuba, the marriage lacks a sense of commitment, and the resultant relationship is nothing more than that of "pilagshut." Marriage requires a husband's commitment to his wife, a commitment that expresses itself through the obligations he assumes in the ketuba. There is therefore a mitzva to marry with a ketuba, and one may not divorce his wife without paying the ketuba. However, the provision forbidding marital relations if a ketuba has not been written is rabbinic in origin, as is the required amount of payment. The same would thus naturally apply to the halakha that establishes, "Whoever commits less than the fixed amount - his relations are considered extramarital." Therefore, in his introduction to Hilkhot Ishut, the Rambam writes only the mitzva to marry with a ketuba. However, the prohibition against marital relations when a ketuba has not been written was instituted by Chazal, in order to ensure that "she is not easy in his eyes to divorce."