تويت
BETROTHAL
(Heb. שִדּוּכִין ,ׁ shiddukhin).
Definition
Definition
In Jewish law
shiddukhin is defined as the mutual promise between a man and a woman to contract a marriage at some future time and the formulations of the terms (tena’im, see below) on which it shall take place. In general parlance, as opposed to legal terminology, it is known as erusin (Kid. 63a,Tos.), which is in fact part of the marriage ceremony proper see *Marriage, Ceremony of). The concept of shiddukhin can entail either a promise by the intending parties themselves or one made by their respective parents or other relatives on their behalf (Kid. 9b; Sh. Ar., eh 50:4–6 and 51). The sages regarded kiddushin (consecration; see *Marriage) without prior shiddukhin as licentiousness and prescribed that “he who enter into a marriage without shiddukhin is liable to be flogged” (TJ, Kid. 3:10, 64b; TB, Kid. 12b; Maim. Yad, Ishut, 3:22 and Issurei Bi’ah, 21:14; Sh. Ar., EH 26:4). Shiddukhin as such has no immediate effect on the personal status of the parties – it being only a promise to create a different personal status in the future (Resp. Rosh 34:1; Beit Yosef EH 55). Nor does the promise give either party the right to claim specific performance from the other – since a marriage celebrated in pursuance of a judgment requiring the defendant to marry the plaintiff is repugnant to the basic principle that a marriage requires the free will and consent of both the parties thereto.
Breach of the Shiddukhin
CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH. The party committing a breach of promise, i.e., by not marrying the other party, may be liable to compensate the other party for any actual damage sustained, such as the expenses of the preparations for the marriage, and may also be obliged to return the gifts he received on the occasion of the shiddukhin, whether from the other party or from relatives and friends (Sh. Ar., eh 50:3–4; Resp. Rosh, 35:8; Arukh ha-Shulḥ an, EH 50:20). The offending party may further be liable to pay the penalty stipulated in the tena’im – or, if not so stipulated, such amount as a court may determine as proper in the circumstances – having particular regard to the degree of mental suffering, shame, and public degradation suffered by the other party as a result of the breach of promise (Tos. to BM 66a; Sh. Ar., EH, 50:3–4; Ba’er Heitev 15). In cases where the sum stipulated in the tena’im to be paid by way of compensation exceeds the value of the actual damage caused, so as to make it a real penalty, the posekim debate the legal validity of such a condition on the grounds that the promise is tainted with *asmakhta, i.e., that a promise to pay such a sum by way of compensation might possibly not have been meant seriously, since both parties would have been at the time so certain and confident of fulfilling their respective commitments. Some of the authorities, mainly Ashkenazi, took the view that the law requiring one who shamed another to compensate the latter should be strictly applied in these cases as well, and that the plea of asmakhta avails only if the stipulated sum is a highly exaggerated one (Tos. to BM 66a and to Kid. 8b; Resp. Rosh 34:2,4; Rema EH 50:6 and Beit Shemu’el, ibid.; Arukh ha-Shulḥ an, EH 50:21f.; Rema Ḥ M 207:16 and Siftei Kohen, ibid.). Other sages, primarily Sephardi, held that the plea of asmakhta would avail the offending party even in a breach of promise case involving shiddukhin (Maim. Yad, Mekhir 11:18; Sh. Ar., Ḥ M 207:16; Beit Yosef EH 50; see also pdr 3:131–154). In order to avoid any doubts, however, in the Middle Ages the Sephardi authorities introduced the practice of two separate agreements between the parties – one whereby each party unconditionally undertook to pay to the other a fixed sum in the event of breach of promise and another whereby each party released the other from the former undertaking upon the fulfillment of all the obligations stipulated in the tena’im (Sh. Ar., Ḥ M, ibid., and EH 50:6; Resp. Maharit, 131). Even if the tena’im had not been reduced to writing the court would adjudge the offending party to pay such compensation as may seem proper in the circumstances, having regard to the standing of the parties, provided the terms of the shiddukhin had been evidenced by kinyan between the parties.
اقرأوا بقة وفوقوا ....دي من الموسوعة اليهودية ... يعني لازم تقرأها وتثق فيها قبل ما تقرأ أي مصدر يهودي أو مسيحي آخر يا موستنير
.gif "(293)")
تعليق