איך הייתםן מתאריםות מה זה חתונה? מה היא המהות של נישואים?

(יח) וְהָיָ֤ה בַיּוֹם־הַהוּא֙ נְאֻם־ה' תִּקְרְאִ֖י אִישִׁ֑י וְלֹֽא־תִקְרְאִי־לִ֥י ע֖וֹד בַּעְלִֽי׃ (יט) וַהֲסִרֹתִ֛י אֶת־שְׁמ֥וֹת הַבְּעָלִ֖ים מִפִּ֑יהָ וְלֹֽא־יִזָּכְר֥וּ ע֖וֹד בִּשְׁמָֽם׃ (כ) וְכָרַתִּ֨י לָהֶ֤ם בְּרִית֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא עִם־חַיַּ֤ת הַשָּׂדֶה֙ וְעִם־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וְקֶ֨שֶׁת וְחֶ֤רֶב וּמִלְחָמָה֙ אֶשְׁבּ֣וֹר מִן־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְהִשְׁכַּבְתִּ֖ים לָבֶֽטַח׃ (כא) וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִ֖י לְעוֹלָ֑ם וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִי֙ בְּצֶ֣דֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּ֔ט וּבְחֶ֖סֶד וּֽבְרַחֲמִֽים׃ (כב) וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִ֖י בֶּאֱמוּנָ֑ה וְיָדַ֖עַתְּ אֶת־ה'׃ (ס)
(18) And in that day —declares the LORD— You will call [Me] Ishi, And no more will you call Me Baali. (19) For I will remove the names of the Baalim from her mouth, And they shall nevermore be mentioned by name. (20) In that day, I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; I will also banish bow, sword, and war from the land. Thus I will let them lie down in safety. (21) And I will espouse you forever: I will espouse you with righteousness and justice, And with goodness and mercy, (22) And I will espouse you with faithfulness; Then you shall be devoted to the LORD.

(כא) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֤ב אֶל־לָבָן֙ הָבָ֣ה אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י וְאָב֖וֹאָה אֵלֶֽיהָ׃ (כב) וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ף לָבָ֛ן אֶת־כָּל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַמָּק֖וֹם וַיַּ֥עַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּֽה׃ (כג) וַיְהִ֣י בָעֶ֔רֶב וַיִּקַּח֙ אֶת־לֵאָ֣ה בִתּ֔וֹ וַיָּבֵ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ אֵלָ֑יו וַיָּבֹ֖א אֵלֶֽיהָ׃ (כד) וַיִּתֵּ֤ן לָבָן֙ לָ֔הּ אֶת־זִלְפָּ֖ה שִׁפְחָת֑וֹ לְלֵאָ֥ה בִתּ֖וֹ שִׁפְחָֽה׃ (כה) וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־לָבָ֗ן מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֔י הֲלֹ֤א בְרָחֵל֙ עָבַ֣דְתִּי עִמָּ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה רִמִּיתָֽנִי׃ (כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָבָ֔ן לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה כֵ֖ן בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ לָתֵ֥ת הַצְּעִירָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַבְּכִירָֽה׃ (כז) מַלֵּ֖א שְׁבֻ֣עַ זֹ֑את וְנִתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ גַּם־אֶת־זֹ֗את בַּעֲבֹדָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תַּעֲבֹ֣ד עִמָּדִ֔י ע֖וֹד שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֥ים אֲחֵרֽוֹת׃ (כח) וַיַּ֤עַשׂ יַעֲקֹב֙ כֵּ֔ן וַיְמַלֵּ֖א שְׁבֻ֣עַ זֹ֑את וַיִּתֶּן־ל֛וֹ אֶת־רָחֵ֥ל בִּתּ֖וֹ ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃

(21) Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.” (22) And Laban gathered all the people of the place and made a feast. (23) When evening came, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and he cohabited with her.— (24) Laban had given his maidservant Zilpah to his daughter Leah as her maid.— (25) When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?” (26) Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older. (27) Wait until the bridal week of this one is over and we will give you that one too, provided you serve me another seven years.” (28) Jacob did so; he waited out the bridal week of the one, and then he gave him his daughter Rachel as wife.—

מלא שבע זאת. דָּבוּק הוּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי נָקוּד בַּחֲטָף, שָׁבוּעַ שֶׁל זֹאת, וְהֵן שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, בְּתַלְמוּד יְרוּשׁ' בְּמוֹעֵד קָטָן

מלא שבע זאת FULFIL THE WEEK OF THIS ONE — The word is in the construct state for it is punctuated with Sheva, so that the meaning is “the seven days of this woman”, referring to the seven days of the marriage feast. Such is the statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:7. It is impossible to say that it means an actual week, (i. e. a calendar week), so that it would mean “finish this week” in the sense “wait until this week be ended”) — for, if so, the ש should be punctuated with Patach (Rashi terms our Kametz a Patach) for the noun must be in the absolute state. Then, again, the word שָׁבֻעַ is masculine — as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:9) “Seven (שבעה) weeks shalt thou number unto thyself” (and here we should have had שָׁבֻעַ זֶה). Consequently the word שבוע can only mean “a period of seven days” old French septaine (cf. Rashi on Exodus 10:22).

מה היא המהות של נישואים ביהדות לפי הפסוקים האלו?

המודל של קידושין ונישואין

(א) קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה אָדָם פּוֹגֵעַ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אִם רָצָה הוּא וְהִיא לִשָּׂא אוֹתָהּ מַכְנִיסָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְתִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הָאִישׁ לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה יִקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ תְּחִלָּה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יג) "כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ":

(ג) וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּקְנֵית הָאִשָּׁה וְנַעֲשֵׂית מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה וְלֹא נִכְנְסָה לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִבַּעְלָהּ חַיָּב מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. וְאִם רָצָה לְגָרֵשׁ צְרִיכָה גֵּט:

(1) Before the giving of the Torah, it would be that if a man happened upon a woman in the marketplace and they wanted to marry each other, he would bring her into his house and consummate the marriage between them privately, and she would be his wife. Once the Torah was given, Israel was commanded that if a man wanted to marry a woman, he would acquire her first through witnesses, and afterwards she would be his wife, as it says, "When a man takes a woman and comes (sleeps with) to her..." (Deuteronomy 22:13).

(2) And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is Rabbinical [lit. "the words of the Scribes"]. And this acquisition is what is called "Kiddushin" or "Eirusin" in several places. And a woman who is acquired through one of these three means is called a "Mekudeshet" or "Meureset".

הָאֲרוּסָה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְהַבָּא עַל אֲרוּסָתוֹ בְּבֵית חָמִיו מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּבִיאָה אָסוּר לוֹ לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא אוֹתָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְיִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְיַפְרִישֶׁנָּהּ לוֹ. וְיִחוּד זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא כְּנִיסָה לַחֻפָּה וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נִשּׂוּאִין בְּכָל מָקוֹם.

An engaged woman (arusa) is forbidden to her husband by rabbinic law so long as she is in her father's house. He [the husband] who sleeps with his fiancee in his father-in-law's house is lashed for rebellion (against rabbinic decrees). Even if he engaged her (kiddushin) through sexual intercourse, he is nevertheless forbidden from sleeping with her in her father's house until he brings her into his house and is alone with her and separates her for himself. This seclusion is the stage of "chuppa" and it is "nisuin" for all intents and purposes. One who sleeps with his finacee for the sake of nisuin after kiddushin is married to her in all regards after the initial stage of intercourse (penetration).

תסכמו מה זה קידושין ונישואין. איך זה עונה על השאלה מה זה חתונה?

(א) הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּשָׁלשׁ דְּרָכִים, וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים. נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר, וּבְבִיאָה. בְּכֶסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבָּעַל. הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם:

(1) A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.

(א) הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ וּבִשְׁלוּחוֹ. הָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בָּהּ וּבִשְׁלוּחָהּ. הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, בּוֹ וּבִשְׁלוּחוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה, הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בִתְמָרָה זוֹ, הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְזוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה, מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. בְּזוֹ וּבְזוֹ וּבְזוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה בְּכֻלָּן, מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. הָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת רִאשׁוֹנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְאַחַת מֵהֶן שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה:

(1) A man can betroth [a woman] through himself or through his agent. A woman may be betrothed through herself or through her agent. A man may give his daughter in betrothal when a young girl [either] himself or through his agent. He who says to a woman, “Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this one” if any one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. [If he says,] “[Be betrothed to me] with this one and with this one and with this one” if together they are worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed. If she eats them one by one, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth a perutah.

וניתני התם האיש קונה מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש
The Gemara asks: But let the mishna teach there, in the next chapter: A man acquires. The Gemara explains: Initially, the mishna taught using the language of the Torah, in which betrothal is called taking. And ultimately, in the next chapter, it taught using the language of the Sages. And what is the reason that betrothal is called kiddushin, literally, consecration, in the language of the Sages? The reason is that through betrothal the husband renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration.

ושואלים: דבר זה מסביר מדוע במשנתנו נאמר "האשה נקנית", ואולם עדיין יש לשאול: וניתני התם [ונשנה גם שם] בפרק הבא "האיש קונה"! ומסבירים: מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא [בתחילה שנה במשנה לשון התורה] ובלשון תורה קנין נקרא "לקיחה", ולבסוף בפרק הבא תני לישנא דרבנן [שנה לשון חכמים], ומאי לישנא דרבנן [ומה טעמה של לשון זו של חכמים] שקוראים ללקיחת אשה "קידושין"? — משום דאסר לה אכולי עלמא [שאוסר אותה בעלה בקידושיה על כל העולם] כהקדש, ולכן משתמשים בלשון "קידושי" אשה.

מה ההשוואה להקדש? אתםן חושביםות שזה בהכרח מודל לא שוויני, או אולי כן?

תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים] הרי את אשתי הרי את ארוסתי הרי את קנויה לי מקודשת הרי את שלי הרי את ברשותי הרי את זקוקה לי מקודשת וליתנינהו כולהו כחדא [ושישנה את כולם כאחת] תנא תלת תלת שמעינהו וגרסינהו [התנא שלוש שלוש שמע אותן וכך גם גרס אותן].

איבעיא להו [נשאלה להם ללומדים] מיוחדת לי מהו מיועדת לי מהו עזרתי מהו נגדתי מהו עצורתי מהו צלעתי מהו סגורתי מהו תחתי מהו תפושתי מהו לקוחתי מהו

פשוט מיהא חדא [פתור לפחות בעיה אחת] דתניא האומר לקוחתי הרי זו מקודשת משום שנאמר (דברים כד, א) כי יקח איש אשה

last expressions are what he teaches us. The novelty of Shmuel’s statement is that with regard to the second set of pronouncements there is no concern at all that a valid betrothal or divorce might have been performed. The Gemara explains why according to Shmuel these pronouncements are not of concern. Here, in the case of betrothal, it is written: “When a man takes a woman” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which indicates that the man is acting to change the status of the woman, and it is not written that he takes himself or gives himself to her, as in the case of one who says: I am hereby your man. And likewise, it is written here, with regard to divorce: “And sends her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is not written that he sends himself from her, as in the case of one who says: I am not your man. The Sages taught in a baraita that if a man says to a woman: You are hereby my wife, or: You are hereby my betrothed, or: You are hereby acquired to me, then she is betrothed. If he said to her: You are hereby mine, or: You are hereby under my authority, or: You are hereby bound to me, then she is betrothed. The Gemara asks: But as the halakha is that she is betrothed with regard to both sets of statements, let the baraita teach all of them together. Why does the baraita divide these statements into two groups? The Gemara answers: The tanna heard them as two sets of three, and consequently he taught them in that form. He heard each sequence of three cases as a separate halakha from his teachers, and therefore he preserved them as two sets of three. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a man betrothing a woman said: You are hereby unique to me, what is the halakha? Is this woman betrothed? Similarly, if he said to her: You are hereby designated to me, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my helper, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my counterpart, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my gathered one, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my rib, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my closed one, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby beneath me, what is the halakha? If he said: You are hereby my seized one, what is the halakha? Finally, if he said: You are hereby my taken one, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby my taken one, she is betrothed, because it is stated: “When a man takes a woman” (Deuteronomy 24:1). A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a man says to a woman: You are hereby my espoused one [ḥarufati], what is the halakha? Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that with regard to one who says: You are hereby my espoused one, she is betrothed, as in Judea they call a betrothed woman a ḥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks: And is Judea most of the world? Even if this is true in Judea, why should a halakha that applies in all locations be based on this local custom? The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to one who says: You are hereby my espoused one, she is betrothed, as it is stated: “Who is a maidservant espoused [neḥerefet] to a man” (Leviticus 19:20). This verse means that she is betrothed to a certain man. And furthermore, the baraita adds another proof for this claim: In Judea they call a betrothed woman a ḥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks: And is it reasonable to introduce the custom in Judea with the term: And furthermore, as proof to a halakha derived from a verse? Rather, the Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: With regard to one who says: You are hereby espoused, in Judea, she is betrothed, as in Judea they call a betrothed woman a ḥarufa, an espoused woman. The Gemara asks a general question with regard to all the previously mentioned expressions: With what are we dealing? If we say that these dilemmas are referring to a case where he was not speaking with her about matters of her bill of divorce or her betrothal, but suddenly issued this statement to her, from where does she know what he is saying to her? Out of context, these statements are not necessarily referring to betrothal. Rather, they are referring to a case where he was speaking to her about matters of her bill of divorce and her betrothal.But if so, even though he did not say anything, she would also be betrothed if he gave her money for the purpose of betrothal. As we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 4:7): If one was speaking with a woman about matters of her bill of divorce or her betrothal, and he gave her a bill of divorce or her betrothal, i.e., the money or a document of betrothal, but did not clarify his action, Rabbi Yosei says: This is sufficient for him, i.e., it is a valid divorce or betrothal because she will understand his intention from the context. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is required to clarify the meaning of his behavior. And Rav Huna says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, even if he said nothing to her she would still be betrothed, and this should certainly be the case if he says one of the statements under discussion. The Sages say in explanation of this matter: Actually, we are dealing with cases where he was speaking to her about matters of her bill of divorce and her betrothal, and if it was referring to a case where he had given her the money and been silent, so too it would have been a valid betrothal. With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he gave her something and said to her one of these expressions. And this is the dilemma raised before the Sages: These expressions, did he say them to her for the purpose of betrothal, or perhaps he said them to her for the purpose of labor? He might have intended to hire her, withdrawing his previous intention to betroth her. In other words, his statement in conjunction with his giving of an item renders the meaning of the expression less clear than if he had remained silent. The Gemara leaves most of these issues unanswered, and states that the dilemmas shall stand unresolved. § The Gemara discusses the matter itself: If he was speaking to the woman about matters of her bill of divorce or her betrothal, and he gave her bill of divorce or her betrothal to her and did not clarify his intention, Rabbi Yosei says: This is sufficient for him. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is required to clarify. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And this is the halakha provided that they were discussing the same issue and had not moved on to a different topic. And likewise, Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: And this is the halakha provided that they were discussing the same issue. The Gemara comments: This disagreement is like a dispute between tanna’im on this topic. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: And this is the halakha provided that they were discussing the same issue. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon says: This is the halakha despite the fact that they were not discussing the same issue. The Gemara asks: And if they were not discussing the same issue, from where does she know what he is saying to her? They have already changed the topic of conversation, and these expressions on their own are ambiguous. Abaye said: They have not changed to an entirely different topic; rather, they changed from discussing one topic to discussing another topic within the same general topic. In other words, they were no longer speaking directly about divorce or betrothal, but they were still discussing related matters. Therefore, his intention was clear to her when he made his statement. Rav Huna says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: But if so, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who does not know the nature of bills of divorce and betrothals should have no dealings in them, i.e., he may not serve as a judge in cases of this kind lest he permit that which is prohibited, does this principle apply even if that individual did not hear this halakha that Rav Huna says that Shmuel says? Since this type of case is uncommon, should such an individual be considered unfamiliar with the halakhot of bills of divorce and betrothals? Rav Ashi said to him: Yes, it is indeed so; this person is considered to lack the requisite knowledge to deal with these cases. This ruling is an important matter with regard to the halakhot of betrothal, and one who is unaware of it might err. The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement. And similarly, with regard to divorce: If a husband gave his wife her bill of divorce and said to her: You are hereby sent away, or: You are hereby divorced, or: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, then she is divorced. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if a husband gave her a bill of divorce and said to his wife: You are hereby a free woman,

איסור אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה

(ח) נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלָלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ אָסוּר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂה מִצְרַיִם הוּא שֶׁהֻזְהַרְנוּ עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) "כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה אָסוּר אֵין מַלְקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לָאו מְיֻחָד וַהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם בִּיאָה כְּלָל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין נֶאֱסָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת וְלֹא תֵּאָסֵר אִשָּׁה עַל בַּעְלָהּ בָּזֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן זְנוּת. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הוֹאִיל וְעָשׂוּ אִסּוּר. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהַקְפִּיד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמוֹנֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים הַיְדוּעוֹת בְּכָךְ מִלְּהִכָּנֵס לָהּ וּמִלָּצֵאת הִיא אֲלֵיהֶן:

מה לדעתכםן הרמב"ם אוסר (ע"פ הספרא) כשהוא כותב את המלה "נוֹשֵׂא"?

שאין כותבין כתובה לזכרים - דאע"פ שחשודין למשכב זכור ומייחדין להם זכר לתשמישן אין נוהגין קלות ראש במצוה זו כל כך שיכתבו להם כתובה:

מודלים אחרים של חלוּת הלכתית

שנים שנשבעו לעשות דבר אחד ועבר אחד מהם על השבועה השני פטור ואינו צריך התרה לפיכך איש ואשה שנשתדכו זה לזה וקבלו חרם לינשא לזמן קבוע מי שיעכב והעביר המועד אסור לינשא לאחר והלה מותר ואינו צריך התרה וגם המעכב עצמו מותר בלא התרה לאחר שנשא שכנגדו:

הַקַּרְקָעוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים וְהַבְּהֵמָה וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן נִקְנֶה בַּחֲלִיפִין וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא קִנְיָן. וְעִקַּר הַדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַקּוֹנֶה לַמַּקְנֶה כְּלִי כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְיֹאמַר לוֹ קְנֵה כְּלִי זֶה חֵלֶף הֶחָצֵר. אוֹ הַיַּיִן. אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה. אוֹ הָעֶבֶד שֶׁמָּכַרְתָּ לִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַכְּלִי וְקָנָהוּ קָנָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹתוֹ הַקַּרְקַע אוֹ אוֹתָן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא מְשָׁכָן וְלֹא נָתַן הַדָּמִים. וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר בּוֹ:

Landed property, slaves, cattle and all the rest of movables may be acquired by a symbolical form of barter, known as kinyan. The principle of this method is that the buyer transfers to the seller an object of no matter how small a value and says to him: "Acquire this object in exchange for the courtyard or the wine or the cattle or the slave that you sold me for so much." Thereupon the moment the seller lifted the object and acquired it, the buyer has acquired title to the land or all the aforementioned movables even though he has not pulled them or paid their price, and neither party may retract.

יש כמה מודלים של 'חלוּת הלכתית' שדתיים הציעו כחתונה חילופית: שבועות, שותפות, שטר וקניין חליפין.

א) האם שימוש באחד מהמודלים האלה עונה לכםן על השאלה מה זה חתונה?

ב) האם אתםן חושביםות שזה נכנס תחת מה שהרמב"ם/רש"י אוסר למעלה?

די לפטריארכיה!

על נישואים וסולידריות, אייל גרוס 2013

מוסד הנישואים הוא מטבעו מפלה ומדיר. גם אם ייכנסו בשעריו זוגות מאותו המין, הוא ימשיך לשדר (ואולי אף ביתר שאת) את המסר שלפיו נישואים הם הצורה האולטימטיבית של היחסים האנושיים, אלה שאמורים להיות משאת נפשו של כל אדם ושיא ההגשמה האישית; הוא ימשיך לשלוח מסר של נחיתות או כישלון אישי למי שאינו/ה חלק ממוסד זה, כי לא רצו או לא יכולים היו להשתתף בו.

כך מי שאין לו/לה בן/בת זוג כי לא רוצה באחד/ת או כי לא מצא אחד/ת, מי שיש לו/לה פחות או יותר מבן/בת זוג אחד/ת – לכל אלו לא נותן מוסד הנישואים פתרון. כל עוד מקושרות למוסד זה פריבילגיות, הן ברמה הסמלית והן ברמה החומרית, זהו מוסד בעייתי שייתכן כי הפתרון הנכון הוא לבטלו כליל כמוסד מדינתי. ...
אבל הביקורות האלו לא צריכות להביא לכך שלא נגלה סולידריות לאלו שבעבורם/ן – בהקשר המשפטי והחברתי האמריקאי ובמקומות אחרים – מוסד הנישואים חיוני היום כדי לפתור בעיות אמיתיות. לעשות זאת, זו פריבלגיה של מי שלא נתקל בבעיות האלו ולא נזקק לפתרון שעשוי אולי להגיע בחודשים הקרובים מבית המשפט העליון האמריקאי. צריך גם לזכור שפסיקה בזכות נישואים לבני זוג מאותו מין תהיה תבוסה להומופוביה ולתפיסה שרואה ביחסים בין בני אותו המין כנחותים, וזה כשלעצמו יהיה סיבה למסיבה.