tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post1571536523826443990..comments2024-03-19T23:03:01.685-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: What does נישואין (Nisu'in) mean?Eliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-22178406397344140732010-03-15T16:10:34.962-05:002010-03-15T16:10:34.962-05:00There are times, though, when you have to be caref...There are times, though, when you have to be careful to use the right letter. I remember thinking about the pitfalls of being a Litvak one Rosh Hashanna.<br><br>ותגער בשטן לבל ישטינניBarzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-35569155441781500892010-03-15T16:10:17.775-05:002010-03-15T16:10:17.775-05:00actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin),...actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin), but 9:4 is a case in point. Yet, as we find across Tanach more than ten places where נשא with Shin means one thing, completely different than the many meanings of נשא with Sin, I think it's unlikely to merge them together.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-38881997809551660622010-03-15T15:57:01.379-05:002010-03-15T15:57:01.379-05:00Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa...Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa'on' to mean the same as 'sha'on,' and again in Yeshaiya 10:13 saying that 'shoshati' means the same as shosati'. Besides Rav Hirsch's use of this tool, I believe that many rishonim use it as well.<br><br>Though it could be that davka Yeshaiya was a Litvak from Shevet Efraim.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-67869807634378075192010-03-15T14:30:40.218-05:002010-03-15T14:30:40.218-05:00My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekius...My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekiuss notwithstanding, it should be noted that הנחש השיאני is with right-Shin while נישואין is left-Shin (i.e. sin). While pronunciation of both might be similar, depending on your family tradition, they belong to completely separate roots. נשא with a right-Shin means to seduce/incite, as in זדון לבך השיאך or השא השאת לעם הזה etc. Obviously not all occurrences of this root can be related to נישואין.<br><br>Thus, it seems the midrash brought in Rashi Sotah (and Shabbos 146a too, also first in Daf(!))is a midrash based on the similarity in written form of both words, but should not be taken as an interpretation of the word נישואין itself.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-23185093020925372522010-03-15T12:14:03.534-05:002010-03-15T12:14:03.534-05:00lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa...lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa, and that's where I put it. See the end of the post.<br>Yasher koach for your laconic comment.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-8707982705758790832010-03-15T11:31:11.338-05:002010-03-15T11:31:11.338-05:00See Sotah 9b first rashi.See Sotah 9b first rashi.LkwdGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14676035514801548695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-66107688464953507672010-03-11T20:25:16.619-06:002010-03-11T20:25:16.619-06:00I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and...I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and the Chosom Sofer on Chumash in the beginning of Miketz and in Vayichi, and I cant find the point you are trying to make. Can you give me a hint?lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-72330713658949873602010-03-11T19:57:20.964-06:002010-03-11T19:57:20.964-06:00GU: How would you fit that idea of her elevation d...GU: <br>How would you fit that idea of her elevation due to her commitment to marriage into the pasuk the gemara quotes "ki BOALAYICH osayich"? And to the tosefos in kesuvos 4a which uses this gemara in sanhedrin to explain why biah rishona is called b'elas mitzvah and the maharsha on this gemara in sanhedrin which (if I remember correctly) clearly explains her golem/unfinished status referring to her inability to conceive while a besulah?<br><br>sorry for repeating my previous point, but I think it is still unresolvedlesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-24041133558467679532010-03-11T19:45:13.335-06:002010-03-11T19:45:13.335-06:00LU, as i used to tell my students:"don't ...LU, as i used to tell my students:"don't take anything i say seriously, including this statement."<br><br>however, there is a deep meaning in the comment. (see also the chasam sofer on chumash on where yosef can speak loshon kodesh and par'o can't)<br><br>the meaning of the word golem is basically unformed raw material. the wife is formed by the commitment of marriage (and hence is <b>elevated</b> into usefulness [i.e., kli status]), whereupon she immediately (if not sooner) proceeds to re-form the suddenly raw critter she just married.<br><br>although as a great neo-platonic philosopher once said: the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you," but rather, "he'll never change." I think her name was broomhilda.great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-56174743200650384302010-03-11T19:02:14.297-06:002010-03-11T19:02:14.297-06:00Yes, everyone asks that on the Rambam. Sorry. My...Yes, everyone asks that on the Rambam. <br><br>Sorry. My shiur wasn't happy either, but BH the Rama in EH 26 seems to be more meikil.<br><br>You know, I kind of agree that certain words become popular because of an inherent duality of meaning. It is possible that Nisuin was chosen because of its additional connotations, though I'm pretty convinced that its fundamental meaning is "taking," as Eli illustrated.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-85022479188385664172010-03-11T18:16:29.293-06:002010-03-11T18:16:29.293-06:00gu:1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfo...gu:<br>1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfortunately since sarcasm/witty humor does not convey well through blog comments, in case you are being serious, I would argue that the gemara in sanhedrin you quoted is not at all referring to marriage itself, but rather the biah rishona, as evident by a) the pasuk the gemara brings down as a proof b) the maharsha on this gemara and c) the tosefos in kesuvos 4a that brings down this gemara as the reason that biah rishona is called bias mitzvah.<br>2) I thought it was before marriage, during courtship and engagement, that a man turns into a mindless fool. After marriage (or maybe at least after shana rishona) he begins to get some of his chochma back. although, maybe I am just in denial...<br><br>Barzilai:<br>1) pilegshim are asur for a non-melech? I find that very surprising and slightly disappointing (its still adar). What about pilegesh b'givah? (obviously, not talking about the terrible outcome, but how she was a pilegesh to begin with) Or Avraham Avenu? Or the son of Dovid Ha'melech (I forget which one, I'm yeshivish and therefore patur from knowing nach) who after Dovid's death tried to usurp the malchus from Shlomo, by asking Bat Sheva for one of Dovid's pilagshim. <br>2)Don't worry, I do not take offense easily, especially since I sincerely doubt any offense is intended. And I agree that following blindly and accepting what someone posts online, without any independent thought is foolish (and I'm being kind here). With that said however, I actually did mean to define nissuin in the realm of elevation, but perhaps not in the way you think. <br>The simplest translation is to take, as he is taking her to him as a wife. But at the same time, why is the root word of nasah being used instead of just the root of kicha? Because there is some form of elevation, at least potentially, going on here. Similar to a nasi, that doesn't become elevated by being a leader and doesn't elevate others by becoming a leader, there is intrinsic potential in this relationship for elevation. By fulfilling the role and responsibilities entailed the nasi becomes a better person that he could have been without the yolk of the masses upon him, etc... same as with marriage. there is great potential for growth because of the marriage that was not there when both are single. Especially considering that his Toarh isn't complete, his happiness isn't complete etc. as the gemara in yevamos (I think) says.lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-87502242156315468572010-03-11T15:59:39.814-06:002010-03-11T15:59:39.814-06:00That's strange. Bishlema you say that there ar...That's strange. Bishlema you say that there are many alternative definitions of chupa, that's one thing. But this is something else entirely. Unless he means the canopy thingy. That I can hear. It would be nice to see someone that says that it's chukos ha'amim.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-53921811974133165562010-03-11T15:46:24.330-06:002010-03-11T15:46:24.330-06:00עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החו...עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החופת חתנים פרק י' בשער המלך דחופה אין לה מקור מן התורה. וכמובן היו אלה שלא בדיוק הסכימו - וכלשון הברוך טעם" שקר ענה <br><br>in any case the gemora sanhedrin 22b says that a woman is a golem until she gets married; the marriage corrects that. however, note that there is conservation of golemkeit. guess whom marriage converts into a golem.great unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-52688846636918331112010-03-11T08:17:24.480-06:002010-03-11T08:17:24.480-06:00LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception....LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception. I edited the post to say that the line so often repeated on the net about nisuin meaning elevation, and characterizing it as something a clown would say before you brought it up. Of course, you also didn't mean to say that's pshat in nisuin. <br><br>Of course the Rambam says pilegesh is muttar, but only for a king. <br><br>Chaim B. did discuss exactly what you said, that even according to the Rambam, chupas niddah creates more ishus than eirusin.<br><br>When I used the 'option' comparison, it was not meant as a perfect model. It's more like an option with a letter of intent. In the context of marriage, this creates a relationship such that she is considered to be a member of his household, a wife-in-waiting.<br><br>Eli, nice that you pointed out מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. I'm convinced that you're right about nisuin being another form of likuchin, a stronger form, meaning more commitment. Forgive the mashal hedyot, but there's a famous line that speaks to the distinction: “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-10302259962688949092010-03-11T06:36:36.497-06:002010-03-11T06:36:36.497-06:00Thank you very much eli for the link, absolutely f...Thank you very much eli for the link, absolutely facinating!lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-76494659431835466822010-03-11T01:23:49.046-06:002010-03-11T01:23:49.046-06:00Thank you, LU, elevate too. I also think my "...Thank you, LU, elevate too. <br>I also think my "suffer" should better be translated "burden" or something similar, as in ונשא עוונו. Yet, the relevant one for the present is "get".<br><br>Re: RNG, it's actually the Tosfos that is shver. It's clear that in Tanach קיחה means the whole process of marriage, if not just Nissu'in: (a) we find Kicha before Matan-Torah, so it must be just מכניסה לביתו, the first instance I believe is ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו, and many others follow. (b) The pasuk clearly says מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. <br><br>As for understanding Tosfos, I guess what he means is not that the word Kicha in Tanach cannot mean Nissuin, but just that the *גזרה שוה* of Kicha does not refer to Nissuin.<br><br>As for Hidbik Shney Rechamim vis-a-vis surrogacy, it was widely discussed. For one pointer, see http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/NA2/NishmatAbraham.eh.1.asp<br>or Google פונדקאות and הדביק שני רחמים, or go to a MO shul where they have the תחומין series, which includes many pieces on the subject.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-34189777524474742492010-03-11T00:34:12.227-06:002010-03-11T00:34:12.227-06:00I forgot to mention in my last comment that the ar...I forgot to mention in my last comment that the aruch ha'shulchan has a novel understanding of the Rambam, which removes the need to say that there are multiple degrees of nissuin. It is in even ha'ezer 61:4 (and also in sif 5 he further explains it)<br><br>Completely separate topic:<br>Does anyone know of if/where someone used the gemara in chulin 70a as a source for who is considered the halachik mother by a case when it is one woman's genetic material and another woman carried the baby? Thanks in advance for any leads.lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-47718416938947342242010-03-10T23:41:43.536-06:002010-03-10T23:41:43.536-06:00First a correction from my earlier post. The Ramba...First a correction from my earlier post. <br>The Rambam, in 10:1, says that nisuin is "bringing her to your home, yichud, and yafreshena lo". I remember having trouble with what exactly those last two words meant. I was remembering incorrectly that they were a part of kiddushin, which is what I was referring to before, but clearly I was wrong. Which still leaves me with a question as to what he means by this...<br><br>Now to comment on other points:<br>I don't understand exactly what you mean by your option plan. Are you implying that there is no marital connection between them, even in regard to themselves? On a d'oraysa level they are allowed to have biah before nissuin. The Rambam (in the previously mentioned halacha) mentions that it is only an issur soferim with malkos mardus. In addition in yehuda, he couldn't claim ta'anus besulim since they regularly were misyachaid in her father's house and likely had biah already. Which is hard to hear if it was an issur d'oraysa, or even a lack of any ishus d'oraysa between them. And while I wouldn't ask from trumah or get like Chaim did, since an eved can also have trumah and needs a get, alternatively, after erusin she falls under the category of kinyan kaspo for trumah and a get is needed to matir her to others even if she isn't really an eishes ish for him.<br>But the fact that he can be matir her n'darim or become tameh to her if he is a cohen might be better examples that show a real relationship. I don't remember seeing it, but if he is pasul as a witness after kiddushin, that would also show an intrinsic connection, more than just a bought future option...<br><br>I didn't click the link that chaim posted, it is after midnight here, but from the end of 10:6 in the Rambam it seems clear he holds that chuppah with a niddah is better than nothing, and creates a level higher than erusin. I apologize if I'm just repeating what is already stated in the other link.<br><br>ba'al ha'blog:<br>I assume (perhaps wrongfully), that you mistyped when you said that there is an issur d'oraysa to have a pilegesh?<br><br>Lastly, I would point out again that I do not think there is an intrinsic issur to be with ones erusa, but rather erusin would technically permit biah, but chazal imposed an external prohibition on them. I would appreciate (and not be surprised) if you can prove me wrong on this point.lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-57006454924432846852010-03-10T21:33:16.146-06:002010-03-10T21:33:16.146-06:00First, the leitzonus: Someone told me tonight that...First, the leitzonus: Someone told me tonight that he thinks the eirusin comes from the shoresh eres, poison.<br><br>Now, the Torah. <br>Chaim, I like the posts from 2007, that even the Rambam will agree that chupa lipsulos shafs a greater degree of ishus than just eirusin, but it's not mattir bi'ah. I suppose that this can be true specifically according to the Rambam that even if she's meyuchedes to one man, like a pilegesh, it's still znus and an issur de'oraysa.<br><br>So, having said that, you yourself are agreeing that ishus is incremental-- even ishus of nisuin. So what's wrong with saying that she's an eishes ish to the whole world but not to the husband? As far as hetter bi'ah, she's not muttar to her husband, but as far as ishus regarding other people, that degree of ishus is there. Of course it's not just an "option to buy." The kinyan of eirusin does create some madreiga of ishus. But as far as "eishes ish," she's not his eishes ish. For other people, she's an eishes ish and chayav missas beis din for znus.<br><br>By the way, you know that the Rogotchover holds that every married woman is assur midin eishes ish even to her husband, except for the din hutrah for her husband. That's whats missing in an arusa- the hutra.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-88704393091245038482010-03-10T20:11:13.741-06:002010-03-10T20:11:13.741-06:00On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in:http...On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in:<br>http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-marriage-yichud.html<br>http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-nesuin.html<br><br>>>>an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan<br><br>Achilas terumah? Get? But of course you will just tell me any halacha I conjur up stems from the idea of having an option, not from real ishus status.Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-55068025403549446822010-03-10T19:13:04.567-06:002010-03-10T19:13:04.567-06:00I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your ...I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your elevate.<br><br>I was very pleased to see that nobody remembered the Rabbeinu Nissim on daf yud. Kin'as sofrim, you know.<br><br>As for the difference between eirusin and nisu'in, I always explain that an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan. This is like buying an option on a property; you don't own it yet, but nobody else can buy it. I will be happy to hear what you have in the Rambam.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-68146008068072617182010-03-10T18:18:12.750-06:002010-03-10T18:18:12.750-06:00I learned once, long ago, that "ein mayshivin...I learned once, long ago, that "ein mayshivin al ha'drush" especially when the drasha is given at a simcha like a bris, kiddush, or sheva brachos. so even if what you said has no accurate bearing, it is still valid for such a drasha.<br><br>with that said, i would argue/comment that eli left out the common meaning of the root of the word nissuin of "to elevate or to lift". and that to lift something includes the meanings of both to carry and to take. granted this is a bit of a semantical distinction, but i feel entitled considering the whole context here. <br><br>In regard to the difference between kiddushin and nissuin, i was grappling with this a few months ago, as my yeshiva is currently learning kesuvos. Where I left off, is that kiddushin is not so much taking her to you as much as removing her from others, where nissuin is the actual taking of her to you as one entity/partnership.<br>(there is a rambam that either helps support this idea or completely disprove it. i dont remember which, and i dont have one near me now, when i go home i will check and re-post)lesser unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-35960080104572325292010-03-10T16:14:56.181-06:002010-03-10T16:14:56.181-06:00You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taki...You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taking', but I thought it was odd that we distinguish between the two steps of marriage by calling one eirusin and the second nisuin, while in Chumash, ki yikach refers to eirusin. It's odd that likuchin and nisuin are different forms of the same word. Unless the "taking" of nisuin is more firm or permanent that the "taking" of likuchin.<br><br><br>But then there's the shitta of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon (brought in Tosfos Kiddushin 10 d'h Kol) that the word kicha (which we use for a gzeirah shavah to learn ha'ara'ah from arayos) refers to NISUIN, not EIRUSIN. That would make life easier. But, as Tosfos says there, Rabbeinu Nissim is very shver, because in all of Shas Kicha kicha from sdei Efron means Kiddushin, not nisuin.<br><br>Still, I agree with you. It's like כאשר ישא האומן את היונק. You are taking someone to yourself, not just 'taking,' but commiting yourself to follow through with full dedication.<br><br>But as a Sheva Brachos drasha, it worked out pretty well, especially the chasan domeh l'melech thing.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-25811563646844512912010-03-10T15:54:45.801-06:002010-03-10T15:54:45.801-06:00First it should be noticed that נישואין is not sym...First it should be noticed that נישואין is not symmetric (grammatically), it's the man who is נושא and the woman נשאת, so the answer to your query to That Person is self-evident.<br><br>נשא in Tanach can mean many things, but the four common meanings are (a) to carry (b) to take (or, better translated, get hold on somethings) and (probably derived from (a) and (b)) (c) to suffer (d) to forgive.<br><br>As much as (c) and (d) might seem relevant, I guess the meaning here is (b). Just recall that the alternative form in Tanach to לשאת אשה is לקחת אשה.<br><br>Thinking of this, I realized the English verb most closely related to the many meanings of the Hebrew נשא is get. Isn't it ironic?Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-32414098889924774512010-03-10T11:07:41.239-06:002010-03-10T11:07:41.239-06:00Baruch Hashem I have the seichel to not tell you h...Baruch Hashem I have the seichel to not tell you how much I agree with you about the trials and tribulations. But not the etymology.Barzilaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.com