New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Kiddushin. He did not say “to me” VS Your daughter is consecrated to me

שו”תCategory: Talmudic studyKiddushin. He did not say “to me” VS Your daughter is consecrated to me
asked 1 year ago

Why didn’t he tell me, “You are sanctified,” according to most opinions, one is not afraid of sanctification,
Compared to the one who says, “Your daughter is consecrated to me” – are they afraid of consecration in relation to all the sisters?
 
The reason why in the second case they are afraid of Kiddushin is that there was an “act of Kiddushin.”
Husband – who said and gave. In relation to the wife – the act was delimited (in relation to all the daughters of the family), at most it was not precisely defined in relation to any of them, and therefore they are all afraid.
In the first case, too, all the actors were in the play. Only the opposite.
A specific woman – to whom the act of consecration was directed. Regarding the husband, the act was not precisely defined in relation to whom it was consecrated, since he did not say “to me.”
But it is limited to a limited number of people! (Similar to nurses).
Because, in any case, there is a man here who gave and said. At most, another option is that someone made him a messenger of Kiddushin, and this can be ascertained through him.
Or at least a suspicion that the act of sanctification is sufficient, perhaps he is the one who sanctified and not the one who sent.


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 2 months ago
This is merely a formal similarity. The difference is clear. In the first case, there is no defined group. You can always say that there is a defined group of all the inhabitants of the world (in this sense, the majority of the dalitah kaman is the majority of the daitah because all the inhabitants of the world are the group before me). Beyond that, in the second case, the group is defined from the speech itself and not just from logic (your daughter – meaning one of your daughters). In the first case, the speech does not define a group at all. At most, you, as an interpreter of the situation, understand that it can apply to someone from a particular group. This is similar to the Rashba’s division in the law of “cuts” between a worldly condition and a condition for a thousand years.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button