Q&A: Betrothal by Bank Transfer
Betrothal by Bank Transfer
Question
Hello,
I wanted to know, theoretically, what you think the law would be regarding betrothal of a woman by bank transfer? (I mean in a case where the witnesses are valid and everything else around it is in order, of course…). The doubt is because we are talking about changing numbers in an account or somewhere there on the display, not actual money; apparently there is no giving here. But on the other hand, there is the concept derived from the law of a guarantor, and so on…
Thank you.
Answer
In my opinion, the law of a guarantor is not relevant here, since in the case of a guarantor there is giving by someone else on my behalf. There are even those who require that there be an agent there as well (a dispute between Rashi and the Ritva).
But one could discuss whether betrothal would take effect here as it does in the transfer of ownership of a field. There too, there is no act of transfer to the woman, only something on the legal plane, and yet this is considered giving money for betrothal. Perhaps we also see this in betrothal through benefit—”Dance before me,” “I will speak on your behalf to the authorities”—where there is indeed an act, but not an actual giving to the woman. Likewise, if one betroths with a loan, were it not for the rule that a loan is given to be spent, she would be betrothed. And through the benefit of forgiving a loan, or by means of a deposit, she is betrothed. In all these cases there is no act of giving.
However, I have seen explanations that in the case of a loan and a deposit, the reason she is betrothed is that the original giving of the money was indeed a giving, and now he merely removes his hand from them (see Pitchei Teshuvah, sec. 27). If so, in those cases there was a giving.
Perhaps the act of transfer on a computer or at the bank is also an act of giving.
Bottom line: I am not sure one can effect betrothal this way. This requires further analysis, and I do not have time right now to check it in depth.
Discussion on Answer
The dispute between Rashi and the Ritva is about a Canaanite slave, not about a guarantor.
Indeed. I got mixed up.
Does someone who betroths through the benefit of a loan need an act of acquisition in order to effect the betrothal? Or does it take effect through the declaration alone?
Why does that matter? I don’t recall it being stated that an act of acquisition is needed. And if we say that the original giving was the betrothal and now there is only a withdrawal, then it’s even simpler that one wouldn’t need it.
It seems a bit strange to me that one could betroth a woman without an act of acquisition. One could ask the same about a woman who is betrothed by “Dance before me”—does that require an act of acquisition? (And there there was no giving at all.) Or perhaps the act of dancing itself is the act of acquisition? And can either side retract during the dance before it is over? That is, does the beginning of the dance effect acquisition, or the completion of the dance, or perhaps neither of them?
That is why I cited the Pitchei Teshuvah.
Following up on the issue of betrothal without an act of acquisition: can money for betrothal be transferred to a woman without an act of acquisition for the purpose of her betrothal? That is, does acquisition by money require drawing the money or lifting it, or can it be transferred by declaration alone? I’m asking because I came across a Rashi from which it seems that money can be transferred by speech alone:
Rashi on tractate Kiddushin 47a
“But in these cases”—the first date she receives did not come into her hand as a loan, because from the moment the statement was completed he transferred it to her as betrothal, and when she eats, she is eating her own. And even if she ate them one by one, she is betrothed if all of them together amount to the value of a perutah.
Rashi implies that the first giving is the act of betrothal. The declaration only defines it as such. Similar to what I brought from the Pitchei Teshuvah above. The contrast to a loan also points to this, since if betrothal by loan were possible, she would be betrothed by the first giving even when he said, “with this one, and this one, and this one.”
If the first giving is the act of betrothal, how does it combine with the other dates that have not yet been given? Meaning, fine—the first date is transferred to the woman by her act of taking it. But the other dates have not yet been given or taken by her, so how does the husband transfer those to her as well without an act of acquisition?
The claim is that this is one continuous act.
Continuing the original question, I thought one might compare this to someone who buys something with a credit card, if that acquisition is effective. In acquisition by credit card too, there is a bank transfer of money happening in the background. Presumably this is a valid acquisition by virtue of commercial custom, and therefore the betrothal should also take effect.
I then saw again that this idea already appears in the link you brought in the first comment.
The main problem is not whether the acquisition is effective. Commercial custom only shows that this is an effective acquisition, but it is possible that betrothal requires some kind of giving. For that issue, defining it as commercial custom will not help. For example, exchange does not work for betrothal, and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagree whether that is by Torah law or rabbinic law. If it is by Torah law, then we see that there is an effective acquisition in commerce that does not work for betrothal.
On second thought, why not view this as an ordinary acquisition by money? After all, an ordinary acquisition by money is defined as transferring money from the hand of party A to the hand of party B. Today money is virtual, and the transfer of money is not done from a physical hand to a physical hand but from a virtual hand (party A’s account) to a virtual hand (party B’s account). That is, in principle, it is the same act.
Indeed, and that is what I wrote above. But I am not certain about it, as I explained.
I just found this now regarding the half-shekel:
https://www.toraland.org.il/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA/