The Vort
[A] (Halacha 404)
Question: At a vort, must one hold a seudah, and what is the definition of this seudah?
Answer: It is written in the responsa of the Mahar"i of Bruna1: 'I was asked: one who does not eat at an optional seudah (seudas reshus), may he eat at a shidduch seudah when a kinyan is accepted? And I answered that a betrothal seudah (seudas eirusin) without marriage is a seudas mitzvah, for in several places in the Talmud they are compared to one another .. but this seudah is not a seudas mitzvah, for we do not find in the Talmud either an obligation or a custom for it. However, regarding the relatives of the chosson and kallah we find in the second chapter of Kiddushin (45b) a custom for this seudah, concerning "he said to his relatives etc." until "he bound him and said, may it be for your relatives," "while they were eating and drinking etc." and Rashi explained that they made a seudah out of affection for the marriage and invited their relatives, end of his words. And there it was not kiddushin, for afterward another betrothed her, which shows that it was a custom to invite the relatives, and since this is so it is possible that it is a seudas mitzvah, for if another betrothed her without the consent of the kallah's father, it is concluded there that it is nothing, because of the presumption that a person does not toil over a seudah and let it go to waste — it emerges that this seudah is the binding of the marriage. And in the Or Zarua it is written that if he needed to invite ten, it is considered a seudah of a mitzvah company and he may enter to eat there, at the end of his Hilchos Semachos. Said Yisrael of Bruna.'
And see also the responsa of the Maharik2 '..And are the engagements not joy and union? Do they not make a feast and rejoice there after performing the kinyan, in honor of the one arranging the match and the one matched.'*
And the Magen Avraham3 wrote: 'And in these countries where they send sivlonos (gifts) a long time before the wedding and hold a seudah which they call a seudas kinyan, it requires examination whether it is called a seudas mitzvah, and it appears to me that it is called a seudas mitzvah'. And so wrote the Alter Rebbe4: 'And even the seudah that is held when the chosson sends sivlonos to his kallah, which they call a seudas kinyan, this too is called a seudas mitzvah'. And see also the words of the Alter Rebbe5 concerning the days of the Omer: 'And it is also permitted to hold a seudah after the shidduch'.
Many of the poskim discussed whether this seudah is considered a seudas mitzvah even in a case where sivlonos are not sent at it6, and from this discussion too we see that the very holding of the seudah is something self-evident, that such was the minhag, to hold a seudah7.
Some have written that this seudah is generally held in the home of the kallah, as is written in the Keser Shem Tov (Gagin)8: 'In Eretz Yisrael, Syria, Egypt, Ashkenaz, and the cities of the West (Maghreb), the custom on the day of the shidduch is to write the shtar tena'im, and the father of the kallah invites the chosson and his parents and relatives in the evening ..'.
But some have written that this pertains to the side of the chosson, as is brought in the sefer Taamei HaMinhagim9: 'And I heard a hint that the seudas tena'im pertains to the chosson from what is said regarding Eliezer, "and precious things he gave to her brother and to her mother, and they ate and drank, he and the men who were with him"'.
Not to be excessive in the seudah
In a reply to one who wrote to the Rebbe that 'we hope the vort will be in a fitting manner,' the Rebbe answered and aroused concern about the not-good situation10: 'It is the opposite of what has lately become the practice among Anash שי' — to squander their money on this, "to leap over the neighbor" [=the main thing is that the event should be greater than the neighbor's], and the more empty the neighbor is — the more the yetzer hara is provoked to enter into a greater debt, just to show her that we too are empty and even more so, and consequently one must fill the emptiness with words of glory of the empty ones, etc.'.
Thus we have seen that the minhag is to hold a seudah and to celebrate the shidduch, but on the other hand it is not proper to squander much money on this
In the coming days we will learn more about the details and customs of this celebration.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Footnotes:
1 *Siman 171 ↩
2 OC siman 444 s"k 9 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 444 se'if 15 ↩
4 Siman 493 se'if 1 ↩
5 The Magen Avraham in siman 558 s"k 1 wrote: 'The seudah held on the night before the wedding in a place where sivlonos are not sent on that occasion is not called a seudas mitzvah, as written in siman 444'. On the other hand, the Chok Yaakov siman 444 s"k 10 wrote: 'And the same applies to a second sending of sivlonos *or* a seudas kinyan held nowadays at the time of the shidduch, this too is called a seudas mitzvah,' and see also the Eliyah Rabbah s"k 6. But note what the Pri Megadim in siman 444 in the Eshel Avraham s"k 9 wrote: 'And a seudah at the time of the shidduch which they call "kenas mahl," see the responsa Chavos Yair [end] siman 70, that it is certainly not a seudas mitzvah. And what the Eliyah Rabbah [s"k 6] and Chok Yaakov [s"k] 10 wrote about a shidduch with a kinyan, *it can be said that sivlonos are sent then*, as the Magen Avraham [s"k] 9 wrote, but a shidduch without sivlonos — no. And see the Be'er Heitev [s"k 7], and according to what I wrote, specifically with sivlonos ..'. But see the Mishnah Berurah in Sha'ar HaTziyun siman 444 s"k 19 who wrote: 'And see in the Pri Megadim who labored to reconcile it, but nevertheless the main view is that they disagree with one another'. And the poskim expounded at length on this, and in Piskei Teshuvah s"k 194 he writes that the Sefas Emes said that it is a seudas mitzvah, since one is forbidden to perform kiddushin without a shidduch. And this is not the place. And see Shulchan HaEzer vol. 1 daf 52 note 21, and likewise in the responsa Divrei Yatziv, Likkutim VeHashmatos siman 124, who concluded: 'And in light of all that has been said, there is a strong source for the custom that the chosson gives a gift to the kallah which is given immediately after the reading of the tena'im, for then the seudah held after this has the status of a seudas sivlonos, and it is a seudas mitzvah'. And in practice, such is the minhag, that the chosson's side gives the kallah gifts of jewelry etc. at this seudah. And the poskim further noted (Chavos Yair siman 70) that if words of Torah are said, or (Shulchan HaEzer vol. 1 daf 52) if they sing songs and praises to Hashem, then it is a seudas mitzvah in any case ↩
6 Tosafos (Nedarim 27b) wrote: 'Rabbeinu Tam explained that the reason they were accustomed to gather all the townspeople at the time of the shidduch is so that there should be an important beis din and the pledge should not be an asmachta; and it does not appear so to Ri, for many times there are only relatives there..'. However, Rabbeinu Tam's words refer to the gathering of people only for the kinyan over the monetary obligations. Whereas in our case the discussion is: a) holding a seudah. b) concerning the conclusion of the shidduch and the kinyan (but it should be noted that according to our minhag the kinyan differs from the former practice, as will be explained in the coming days) ↩
7 Vol. 1-2 p. 592 (but note that he did not mention there the holding of a seudah, but only a gathering) ↩
8 Siman 938 in the note ↩
9 Likkutei Sichos vol. 19 p. 510 ↩
[B] (Halacha 405)
Question: What is the source for performing a kinyan at a vort, and what is its purpose?
In the past, part of the ceremony of celebrating the shidduch was the writing of the tena'im or the principal terms1, which essentially was done concerning the monetary obligations for the wedding, and the setting of penalties for whoever would breach this, and over all this they would perform the kinyan2. And therefore we find that the poskim3 called this seudah 'seudas kinyan,' because of the kinyan at this seudah.
However, nowadays it is not our minhag to do the tena'im and monetary obligations at this occasion, but rather only closer to the chuppah4. But despite this, it is customary to perform a kinyan on the very agreement to marry one another, and although this is a new practice, yet from examining the words of the poskim it appears that they also dealt with such a kinyan whose purpose is to ensure the marriage, unrelated to the monetary side, as follows:
For the Rema5 in his gloss mentioned in passing: 'And likewise regarding two who made a kinyan that they would marry one another'.
And indeed the Sma6 noted on this: 'But a kinyan on the obligation that they would marry one another alone, as the Maharam (Rema) wrote here, we do not find, for it would be like a kinyan devarim (a kinyan on mere words)'. That is, according to the Sma's contention, one does not perform a kinyan on the marriage itself, since this is defined as a mere kinyan devarim which is not valid7.
But nevertheless, even according to those who hold that the kinyan indeed is not effective, we already find among the Rishonim those who wrote that such a kinyan is performed [as the Rema mentioned], as the Terumas HaDeshen8 wrote: 'They accepted a kinyan sudar that they would marry one another — it is close to certain that it never entered their minds that the kiddushin would be completed by means of chalipin, but rather they made a kinyan from one another that they would not retract, just as is done many times, that they make a kinyan from one another by means of a sudar on matters over which the kinyan does not take hold, and so it is found in the Maimon, end of chapter 5 of Hilchos Mechirah9, that in many places they are accustomed to perform a kinyan by sudar on matters in which the kinyan has no effect .. in order to make known that what he said and accepted upon himself to do is not by way of jest and amusement'.
We thus learn that even though in principle this kinyan action does not take hold from the standpoint of the laws of kinyanim, nevertheless the kinyan is performed in order to show that he resolved in his heart, and there is here an absolute resolve of mind (gemiras daas).
Moreover, the Igros Moshe10 wrote: 'But when the kinyan that is customary is performed, even though the kinyan to marry one another is not effective, for it is like a kinyan devarim as it appears in the Sma siman 243 s"k 12 ..rather since they were accustomed to perform a kinyan, the matter is not actually completed as long as they have not performed a kinyan, and if they were accustomed specifically to the writing of tena'im, the completion does not occur except with the writing of the tena'im, for it is as though they stipulated on condition that the documents be written, which the Rema wrote there. And therefore if they decided to conclude the shidduch and will not do anything — neither a kinyan nor the writing of tena'im, as many do here — on this alone there is already the cherem'.
That is, the Igros Moshe innovates that ultimately, even though the kinyan, from the standpoint of the laws of kinyanim [according to some of the views], does not take effect, nevertheless, since they were accustomed to do this, this itself generates halachic validity.
We have learned that the minhag to perform a kinyan at the vort celebration is in order to show that they wholeheartedly agreed to marry one another.
Footnotes:
1 See at length in Seder Tena'im by Rabbi Shd"b Levin ↩
2 See also Bris Avraham CM end of siman 29, and see also the responsa Neta Soreik OC siman 48. And the responsa Noda BiYehudah, first edition, YD siman 68. But see the Chasam Sofer EH vol. 1 siman 134 ↩
3 See OC siman 444 in the Magen Avraham s"k 9. Chok Yaakov s"k 10. Eliyah Rabbah s"k 6. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there se'if 15 ↩
4 As the Rebbe wrote, Igros Kodesh vol. 7 p. 19. And see further in Seder Tena'im there chapter 5 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch CM siman 243 se'if 7 ↩
6 S"k 12 ↩
7 But on the other hand see the Aruch HaShulchan CM siman 243 se'if 8 who wrote: 'And there is one who disagrees on this, that marriage is not a kinyan devarim [Taz], and so it is the main view, for the obligation of marriage is a personal lien (shibud haguf), for he obligates himself regarding her sustenance and her clothing, and she subjects her body to labor, and it is no worse than a kinyan on the hiring of the body, and so it implies from our master the Rema in se'if 7, see there'. But the Pischei Choshen vol. 9 (Yerushah VeIshus) chapter 6 note 31 noted: 'And it would seem to require examination, for he does not obligate himself in sustenance and she too does not become subjected in the work of her hands except through the marriage, and after the marriage each obligates himself in his obligations even without a kinyan, and if so, of what benefit is the kinyan'. [And note that even according to the words of the Aruch HaShulchan, according to the minhag the kinyan alone is not effective, as written in EH siman 50 se'if 26: 'It is certain that among us the main completion is the public reading of the tena'im and the breaking of the vessels as written, and when they accept a kinyan at the shidduchim even without specification and they did not say "on condition that you write," the intent is upon the writing and the reading, and therefore as long as they have not read the tena'im publicly they may retract from the shidduch without a penalty, and so is the minhag'] ↩
8 Rambam Hilchos Mechirah chapter 5 halacha 12-13. And see also Beis Shmuel siman 51 s"k 10 ↩
9 Responsa EH vol. 1 siman 91 ↩
[C] (Halacha 406)
Question: Why do we break a plate at a vort?
Answer: It is brought in the seforim of the poskim that at the vort occasion [at which, according to their minhag, they would also write a shtar tena'im as mentioned] they would break a plate; for regarding the Levush1 who wrote: 'And for this reason they are also accustomed to break the glass under the chuppah, to startle, to lessen the joy,' the Malbushei Yom Tov2 noted: 'That this is the reason that they break a pot at the writing of the tena'im'.
And even according to our minhag, where we do not write the tena'im at this seudah, it is customary to break a plate immediately after performing the kinyan.
In the sefer Baal Shem Tov al HaTorah3 it is brought: '"When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her etc." It is said in the name of the holy and pure Rav, the Baal Shem Tov, may his memory protect us, the reason why at the time of the shidduchim they break an earthenware vessel, and at the time of the marriage a glass vessel, is that it is impossible to tear up the tena'im, just as an earthenware vessel, once it is broken, has no remedy, but after the marriage one can release her by means of a get, similar to a glass vessel, which, even though it is broken, has a remedy'4.
The Sdei Chemed5 noted concerning the joy that takes place at the time of the breaking: 'And when I came to these places I saw that the people of this city, the Krimchaks, may Hashem watch over them, are accustomed to break a glass when they make a shidduch as well, and as it appears they took this minhag from the Ashkenazim, may Hashem watch over them, who are accustomed to break pots at the time of the writing of the tena'im, as the Pri Megadim wrote in siman 560 in the Mishbetzos s"k 4, namely in order to startle, and that the joy should not be in its fullness, and to remember the Churban, see there in the Sha'arei Teshuvah. But now, after the masses, the ignorant ones, have become habituated to it, it has been transformed for them from grief to joy, for at the time of the breaking of the pots their mouths are filled with laughter, and mockery, and ridicule, and the house bursts with their noise from the abundance of laughter, and they do not know that "in the place of gladness there shall be trembling," to remember the destruction of our House — and "joy, what does this accomplish"; and "if I had the strength I would abolish it," for the absence of the good is better than the existence of the not-good.
However, note from the Aruch HaShulchan6 who wrote: 'And it is possible that according to our minhag, that after the writing of the tena'im and after the acceptance of the kinyan they read the tena'im publicly and break vessels as a sign of joy, they cannot retract after the reading of the tena'im, for this is the main completion according to the minhag7, and this is the main shame, and so is the main view in law'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Who breaks the plate?
Answer: It is written in the sefer Mataamim HeChadash (Lipietz)8: a reason for the minhag that at the tena'im the mechutanim (the in-laws) break the vessels, and at the time of the chuppah the chosson himself breaks the vessel under the chuppah, or the Rav or the shamash, is that at that point, at the tena'im, the chosson has not yet acquired any kinyan9, and for him there is as yet no joy at all, and so for a mere remembrance the mechutanim break it. But at the time of the chuppah, when the joy is his own, and "in the place of gladness there shall be trembling," therefore it is incumbent upon him to break the vessel as a remembrance of the Churban'.
And the Shulchan HaEzer10 wrote that the mechutanis (the women in-laws) are the ones who break the plate.
Thus we have seen that the mechutanis were accustomed to break an earthenware plate11 at the vort occasion, (in contrast to the chuppah occasion, at which the chosson breaks a glass cup).
Footnotes:
1 OC siman 560 se'if 2 ↩
2 S"k 1. Brought also in the Eliyah Rabbah there s"k 7, to break the glass etc. And in the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzos Zahav OC siman 560 s"k 4. And see additional reasons in Likkutei Moharan Torah 60 and Torah 265. And in Likkutei Moharan Tinyana Torah 90. And see further in the writings of R. Aizik Shvei vol. 1 p. 275 ↩
3 Parshas Ki Seitzei, brought from Toldos Aharon in the Likkutim. And see also Reshimas Devarim (Chitrik) vol. 3 p. 38-39 ↩
4 And see also Shulchan HaEzer vol. 1 p. 52 os 20 who wrote similarly: 'And see in Sha'arei Rachamim, written from the Gra"v, the reason that they break an earthenware vessel at the tena'im, because an earthenware vessel that is broken has no remedy, and therefore at the shidduchim, since it is brought in the seforim that it is better to tear the parchment of the twelve lines of the get than to annul a shidduch bond, therefore they hinted with earthenware which has no remedy' ↩
5 Asifas Dinim, Maareches HaZayin os 12 (vol. 5 p. 2032) ↩
6 EH siman 50 se'if 24 ↩
7 Similarly he wrote in se'if 26 that the completion of the shidduch is done at the time of the breaking: 'However, this is certain, that among us the main completion is the public reading of the tena'im and the breaking of the vessels as written' ↩
8 Erech Chosson VeKallah p. 18 os 5, brought in Shulchan HaEzer vol. 1 p. 52 os 20 ↩
9 Even according to the minhag that the chosson does perform a kinyan, then as we learned in the previous halacha, the kinyan itself does not have so much of the validity of a kinyan, and even according to our minhag, where the mechutanim nowadays do not perform the tena'im and the kinyan at the vort, nevertheless it is customary that the mechutanis break ↩
10 Vol. 1 p. 52 ↩
11 Note from the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzos Zahav there who wrote: 'At the tena'im which they do to startle and to lessen the joy, it is fitting to take *a broken pot of earthenware from the clay of the ground to break*, and understand this'. But the Likkutei Maharich, Seder Nesuin, already wrote that nowadays the minhag is *to break a whole vessel* ↩
[D] (Halacha 407)
Repeating a Chassidus maamar
We learned1 that there is a discussion among the poskim whether this seudah is considered a seudas mitzvah, and the Chavos Yair2 wrote that if words of Torah are said at this seudah, then it is certainly a seudas mitzvah. And these are his words: 'And it is not called a seudas mitzvah unless the gathering of people is for the sake of the mitzvah or the permitted derush (sermon) that has already gone forth from the mouths of the early ones, because the derush comes on account of the seudah, and all those seated are participants in the seudah and listen to the voice of the one giving the derush, for so it ought to be — not like the corrupt minhag of the masses..'.
And indeed such is our minhag, that the chosson repeats a Chassidus maamar, as the Rebbe writes3: 'Surely at the time of his kishurei tena'im he repeated a maamar of Chassidus, and it is astonishing that he does not mention this in his letter'4.
The holy Rav, the author of the Minchas Elazar of Munkacs, wrote in his sefer Divrei Torah5 concerning the wedding: 'That which is the accepted and customary minhag from earlier generations, that the chosson who says words of Torah at the wedding seudah begins to say them, but immediately the assembled ones interrupt him and do not let him finish (by beginning to sing and the like, in some other interruption) .. behold, the Magen Avraham (siman 670 s"k 4) wrote that at the marriage of the daughter of a talmid chacham to an am ha'aretz, if they say songs and praises it is a seudas mitzvah, and also if they say words of Torah it is a seudas mitzvah .. therefore it is indeed a praiseworthy reason that the chosson begins to say words of Torah so that the seudah should be a seudas mitzvah, for it is not seemly that he should hold himself to be a talmid chacham (in which case the seudah would automatically be a seudas mitzvah) .. however, the assembled and gathered ones must honor him and gladden him as mentioned above, therefore they interrupt him at the moment he begins to say words of Torah, meaning that he need not say words of Torah in order for it to be a seudas mitzvah, for in any case it is a seudas mitzvah at the marriage of a talmid chacham, and by this they hold him to be a talmid chacham, and this is his honor'.
And some have written6 that the minhag to interrupt the chosson and the like during the saying of chiddushei Torah and a maamar — its origin was in order not to embarrass the one who does not have it, for instance, where the chosson is unable to say it.
And in practice some were accustomed thus also at the simchah of the vort, that they would interrupt the chosson from his derashah, but our minhag is as the Rebbe wrote in Igros Kodesh7: 'And regarding what you wrote that he began the maamar and they interrupted him — this accords with the minhag. It is known what occurred in such a case at one of the simchos at which my revered father-in-law the Rebbe, of saintly blessed memory, the memory of the righteous and holy for a blessing, his soul in Eden, may his merit protect us, was present, that they likewise came with a contention about the minhag, and he said that he should finish the maamar in its entirety, and to fulfill the minhag he should begin to say it once more and they should interrupt him'.
And so is our minhag at the seudah of the vort, that the chosson should say the maamar, and after they finish, he begins again, and then they interrupt him to fulfill the minhag.
If the chosson does not say words of Torah, it is fitting that one of those present say them, for as mentioned above, some have written that the reason for the saying is in order that this be a seudas mitzvah, as written in the Shulchan HaEzer8: 'And behold, from the words of the responsum of the Chavos Yair mentioned above it is implied that not specifically if the chosson expounds, but the same applies if others expound in words of Torah, it is a seudas mitzvah'.
Thus, our minhag is that the chosson says a Chassidus maamar (and it is fitting that those present listen to the saying of the maamar so that this be a seudas mitzvah), and when he finishes he begins again, and then they interrupt his saying by means of a niggun.
Footnotes:
1 In halacha number 404 ↩
2 Siman 70 (brought also in Shulchan HaEzer vol. 1 p. 52) ↩
3 Igros Kodesh vol. 13 p. 135 ↩
4 The personal attendant R. Berel Yunik writes in his diary (printed in Mekadesh Yisrael p. 170) that the Rebbe asked him whether he said a maamar at the tena'im, and also took interest in which maamar it was. And some had an instruction to say also a matter in the revealed part of the Torah (nigleh) in addition to the Chassidus maamar, as R. Nachum (son of R. Moshe Binyamin) Kaplan related (see in the kuntres 'Hachanos LaChasunah' (Kratz) p. 37 note 51) that when he became engaged after Pesach of 5728, he approached the Rebbe at a farbrengen with a bottle of mashke as is customary, and the Rebbe asked him 'Surely you will repeat a maamar at the vort?' and he answered yes; afterward the Rebbe continued, 'And surely you will also say a matter in nigleh?' and he answered yes. After the vort, when he entered for yechidus, the Rebbe took interest in whether he had repeated the maamar ..' ↩
5 First edition, os 1 ↩
6 See also the letter of the Rebbe vol. 16 p. 94 ↩
7 Vol. 16 p. 232, and see there further on p. 3 and p. 94 ↩
8 Siman 2 s"k 21 ↩
[E] (Halacha 408)
Question: What is the correct title for the chosson and kallah after the vort?
Answer: As is known, by Torah law the marriage process has two stages. The first stage is the eirusin — kiddushin, which is done when the chosson betroths the kallah with a ring, and from then she is a fully married woman (eishes ish), and one who comes to divorce her requires a get. Afterward comes the stage of nisuin, which is when the husband brings the kallah to dwell in his home. In the past they would perform the eirusin a length of time before the nisuin [this period is derived from the verse in the parshah "let the maiden remain with us days or ten," and they learned from this that the waiting period between the eirusin and the nisuin was a year, and at least ten months]. But in later generations they began to perform the eirusin in close proximity, at the same occasion before the nisuin, as the Tur wrote in Even HaEzer siman 62: 'And nowadays it is not customary to betroth except at the time of the chuppah'.
And if so, the expression commonly used by all to say after the vort — regarding the kallah that she is "betrothed" (me'ureses) — is an expression that is incorrect from a halachic standpoint.
However, we already find in the time of the Rishonim that this expression was commonly used by the people to call even a betrothed-through-shidduch woman (meshudeches) "arusah," as the Ritva1 wrote: 'And the reason is because there are people who call a meshudeches "arusah"'.
And so we find in a responsum of the Rosh2: 'Question: Reuven made a shidduch with Rivkah and sent her sivlonos. The townspeople asked the bearers of the sivlonos, "to whom are you bringing these sivlonos?" They said, "to Rivkah, betrothed (me'ureses) of the aforementioned Reuven," and a report went out in the city that she is betrothed (arusah) to him. Let our master teach us whether these are kiddushin or doubtful kiddushin, requiring her to have a get, since the report went out in the city that she is his betrothed (arusaso).
Answer. It appears that there is no report here requiring her to have a get, for on account of sivlonos there is no concern here, since they were accustomed in this land to send sivlonos and then to perform kiddushin. And as for the report that the women who were bringing the sivlonos to Rivkah said that Reuven, her betrothed (arusah), sent to her — that is not a report requiring her to have a get, for such is the way of the world, to call a meshudeches "arusah," and over anything trivial we do not require a get. As it appears in the last chapter of Gittin (89): "Said Ulla, not that they should hear a mere rumor, but rather such that there are lamps lit and beds spread and people coming in and going out and women spinning by the light of the lamp and rejoicing and saying, 'so-and-so was betrothed today.'" And further there: "not that they should hear a mere rumor, but rather such that they should say, 'so-and-so — from where did he hear it?' 'From so-and-so and so-and-so,' and they went off to a country overseas." This shows that over a mere report we do not require a get; therefore there is no cause for concern here to require her to have a get. Asher son of HaRav Yechiel, of blessed memory'.
But the Rebbe wrote to several people not to write or say "betrothed" (me'urasin), for instance in a letter of the 5th of Sivan 57293 the Rebbe writes: 'In my humble opinion one should not say or write "eirusin" — until there is eirusin'. And likewise in a letter to the Knesset member R. Avraham Verdiger of the 13th of Shevat 5736 on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, the Rebbe added in his holy handwriting: 'I have always wondered at the minhag to call the kishurei tena'im "eirusin." And this is simple to understand'.
And at the farbrengen of Shabbos Parshas Tisa 57414 the Rebbe aroused concern about this publicly: 'There is another matter connected with kishurei tena'im, that there are those who conduct themselves in this not as is proper: there are rabbis who, when they want to announce a kishurei tena'im between a chosson and kallah, send letters and publicize it in the newspapers so that it should reach 127 countries, that his name should go before him, and there they write that so-and-so son of so-and-so and so-and-so daughter of so-and-so "have become betrothed" (nis'arsu), which is simply a matter of ignorance (am ha'aratzus). For through "eirusin" the woman becomes an eishes ish regarding all matters, and this simply bears on matters of capital law (dinei nefashos), whereas here, what is effected is the matter called kishurei tena'im — a term and expression brought in the poskim'.
And so we find further among the poskim that they were particular about this — see Kol Aryeh5, and likewise the Gaon R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was particular6.
And note that we find further in the period of the Rishonim that they would call them by the title: 'chosson and kallah', as the Maharik7 wrote: 'And as for what you wrote, that the expression "chosson and kallah" is known to all to be said of those matched together and who draw close in joy — I do not know what entered his mind, for I too concede that it indicates joy and union, and are the engagements not joy and union? Do they not make a feast and rejoice there after performing the kinyan, in honor of the one arranging the match and the one matched? Yet there is no indication of kiddushin on account of this. And as for the proof he brought from the verse "the voice of gladness and the voice of joy, the voice of the chosson and the voice of the kallah" — it is no proof at all, for I already wrote in my first writing that they call him "chosson and kallah" on account of their ultimate state (al shem sofan). And so it appears from the words of Chazal and from the plain meaning of the verses, that the term "chosson and kallah" applies to the time of entering the chuppah, as the verse which he himself brought is written, "from the canopies of the gladness of grooms," and further it is written, "and he is like a chosson going forth from his chuppah," and it is written, "let the chosson go forth from his chamber and the kallah from her chuppah," and also the statement of our Rabbis of blessed memory in the first chapter of Taanis (daf 6) and the last chapter of Berachos (daf 29): "from when do we recite the bracha over the rains? From when the chosson goes forth to meet the kallah" — this indicates that they are not called "chosson" until the time of the chuppah, when they seclude themselves with one another, according to both the first explanation and the second; but beforehand, even if she has been betrothed (niskadshah), they are called "arus" and "arusah" throughout the entire Talmud and throughout the words of the poskim. Rather, perforce one must say that they are called "chosson and kallah" on account of their ultimate state, as I explained, and if so, there is no proof at all that this designation imports kiddushin at all'.
Thus, the expression commonly used by many, to call a meshudeches "betrothed" (me'ureses), is an error (and may lead to a stumbling block), and it is fitting to be particular about this; and the appropriate title is "meshudachin" [or "chosson and kallah"].
Footnotes:
1 Gittin 89 ↩
2 Klal 35 siman 12 ↩
3 Brought in Sichos Kodesh 5741 vol. 2 p. 512 ↩
4 See Sichos Kodesh there ↩
5 Nisuin p. 28, brought in Nitei Gavriel chapter 23 os 16 ↩
6 Kovetz Mevakshei Torah, kovetz 23 p. 10 ↩
7 Responsa siman 171. And see Chelkas Mechokek EH siman 45 s"k 4 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the group (silent): 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group