Q&A: Acquisition by Exchange in Betrothal
Acquisition by Exchange in Betrothal
Question
What is the reason that acquisition by exchange does not work for betrothal? I saw that the Rabbi explains that the idea in the acquisition of a woman is a metaphysical bond between the man and his wife, and therefore it has to be done by means of money, unlike exchange, where that does not work. But seemingly, exchange too is ultimately an act that changes people’s ownership of objects, so it also creates a connection between them, no? I’d be happy if the Rabbi could explain the difference between the two forms of acquisition and why acquisition by exchange does not work.
Answer
The difference between exchange and acquisition by money is that in acquisition by money we are dealing with a formal act that substitutes value for value, whereas in exchange it is an exchange of object for object. In other words, exchange is not a legal act but a physical exchange of merchandise for merchandise (the primitive and ancient form of acquisition), whereas money is a formal act that effects a legal status of ownership on the acquired object.
Therefore, through exchange one can acquire only something over whose actual object I have ownership. But betrothal is not the application of ownership (in the monetary sense) to the woman, and therefore what is required there is a formal act that effects a legal status. What we learn from Ephron is that acquisition by money, which effects a legal status of ownership on a field, does so regarding a woman as well. This is one of the formal acts that effect betrothal.
All this is of course according to the view of Tosafot in tractate Kiddushin. According to Rashi, exchange is in principle effective for betrothal, except that the woman does not consent. The textual reading is: “A woman does not transfer herself for less than a perutah’s worth.” According to Tosafot, the textual reading is that “a woman is not acquired for less than a perutah’s worth” (that is, it does not depend on her resolve, but on the Jewish law itself, as I wrote above).
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand the question.
Because according to the one who says that with acquisition by sudar we do not treat it as exchange, then it is not an exchange of object for object but rather resolve that creates a legal status, so why not with a woman?
If sudar is not exchange, then there is no reason it should not work for a woman. There can be limitations because of the character of the act of acquisition, making it unsuitable for betrothal (just as money does not acquire movable property, and the like). Beyond that, for an act of acquisition to work regarding a woman, you need a source from the Torah. Money, document, and intercourse have a source. If you find a source for sudar, then yes indeed.
Does the Rabbi understand that acquisition by sudar also is not a legal status-effecting act?