Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Even ha-Ezer/27
The language of Kiddushin: what he says and what he gives her[edit]
(10 paragraphs)
Paragraph 1- How does marriage take effect via money? He must give her a perutah or something worth a perutah in front of two witnesses and he tells her “you are married to me with this.” There are those who say he should say to her “like the rules of Moshe and Yisrael,” and this is indeed our custom in the first instance. We also have the custom to marry with a ring, and a reason for that is provided in the Tikkunei Zohar. The same is true where a man says to the woman “you are meuras to me” or “you are a wife to me” or any language where the understanding is that it is certainly a language of marriage in that location, so long as she understands it is marriage language. If he was discussing marriage matters with her and then gave her the money, even if she was silent, the marriage would be effective, so long as they were still discussing that topic. All the more so would it be effective if he used definite marriage language but she didn’t understand that it was marriage language. There are those who say that they don’t need to literally be discussing that topic, but can also discus other topics that are related, in that they are not discussing the actual marriage ceremony but the needs of the relationship. There are those who say he does not have to have been speaking with her, but just speaking in her presence.
Paragraph 2- If a man says to a woman “you are my wife,” “you are my ‘connection’,” “you are my arusah,” “you are mine,” “you are in my domain,” or “you are my purchase,” she would be married assuming she understands his words or they initially were discussing marriage topics. A man is not believed, however, to say he did not intend marriage.
Paragraph 3- If a man tells a woman, “you are special to me,” “you are designated to me,” “you are my helper,” “you are opposite me,” “you are my rib,” “you are my closure,” “you are under me,” “you are my treasure” or “you are my copy,” she would be uncertainly married. The same would be true if the man said to her, “you are my charufah.” If he said to her, “you are my nesuah,” however, there are those who say it would be of no effect. This all assumes he was initially discussing the marriage. If he was not initially discussing the marriage, however, we would not be concerned for these words. If one tells a woman he is giving her the item out of love and affection we would be concerned for marriage because he might have been saying he is giving it so that there should be love and affection between them and it is as if he said “you are special to me” or “designated to me.” There are those who say that even these terms would not be effective if he was not discussing marriage matters prior to the statement, but if she says she accepted the item for the sake of marriage it would be an uncertain marriage. Even if a man gave a woman an item in silence and did not say anything, and they both say it was intended for marriage, the marriage would be valid. In a case where the marriage is invalid, even if the man subsequently says “you are married to me,” he must take back the money from her and give it as marriage.
Paragraph 4- If a man says “you are married” but does not say “to me,” she would not be married. This is indeed the primary view but there are those who are stringent and say she would be married. If he was discussing marriage topics with her, she would be married. If a man married a woman with a bona fide marriage and then told another woman in the first woman’s presence “you shall be married” and did not say “to me,” it is considered “evident handles” and we would be concerned for the validity of the marriage.
Paragraph 5- There are those who say that if when the man give the woman the money he says, “I am giving this to you as a form of marriage,” it is as if he said “to me.” He must use language that is clearly future tense, such as where he says “these are for marriage” or “this should be for marriage.” If he just said “marriage” alone, however, it is of no effect.
Paragraph 6- If a man tells a woman, “I am your man,” “I am your husband” or “I am you arus,” it is of no effect, even if they were initially discussing marriage because the verse states “when he takes,” excluding when he takes himself. If he gave money to a man and said “you are my father-in-law” but did not say “your daughter is married to me,” it is of no effect.
Paragraph 7- If the woman gave the man money and said “I am married to you,” she would not be married.
Paragraph 8- If the man gave the money and the women made the statement, and they were discussing marriage, the marriage is certainly effective. If they were not discussing marriage, the marriage is uncertain. If the man responded “yes,” regardless of whether it was at the time it was given or not, the marriage is certainly effective, even if they were not discussing the topic.
Paragraph 9- If the woman gave the money and said “here is this dinar as a gift and I will marry you with it,” and the man took the money and told her “you are married to me with this benefit that I am accepting your gift” and he was a prestigious person, the woman would be married because she receives benefit over the fact that he benefits from her and she gives herself as kinyan with such benefit. Whether a person is considered a prestigious person who would not allow the woman to be permitted to others without a get, requires the investigation of a scholar. There are those who are stringent and say the same applies even if the woman did not initially make the statement but simply gave the money without saying anything and the man told her “you are married to me etc.” and she is silent.
Paragraph 10- The amount of silver that is required to marry a woman is the weight of half a barley’s worth of pure silver.