Chicagoan: Take the shalach manos, just don’t have marriage in mind! I was discussing this thread with the Rav of my shul over Shabbos (it had raised a technical question about cherem d’Rabbeinu Gershom in my mind and who else am I going to discuss such things with?) and he said, “If I go to the the door and there’s nobody home but the family’s 16-year-old daughter, I give her the shalach manos!”
Tjeshurun: It doesn’t matter whether or not it works - it’s not allowed. Murder works, but we don’t go around doing it because it’s not allowed. (If it doesn’t work, it’s called “attempted murder” and it’s STILL not allowed!)
<<It doesn’t matter whether or not it works - it’s not allowed. Murder works, but we don’t go around doing it because it’s not allowed. (If it doesn’t work, it’s called “attempted murder” and it’s STILL not allowed!) >>
It does matter whether or not it works, because if it is considered a “working kiddushin” then the two need to be divorced by means of a get, and any man who commited adultery with her if she didn’t receive a get would be punishable by Beis Din. But I guess this point is kind of irrelevant to the discussion…
*sigh* Fine, clarification time. Yes, IF a man has relations with a woman whom he is permitted to marry AND he states that his intention is for the sake of marriage AND she accepts the terms AND there are two kosher witnesses that they had yichud together for a sufficient amount of time, THEN It would make a difference in halacha.
HOWEVER, whether it works makes no difference in whether or not people should do it. Whether or not it works, don’t do it because it’s not allowed.
I’m pretty sure some rabbi or community along the way made some sort of takkanah on it...I remember reading somewhere that the boys used to do that and run so they discontinued its use permanantly
Whether or not they suspended it, if it works on a deoraisa level, then it may still have some function even now. Take for example kinyan maos - an acquisition via currency - even though the rabbonim suspended it, it still functions to a certain degree. As this is also a kinyan, it would seem that the same logic would apply.
Just because it would technically work on a deraisa level doesnt mean its still valid. As almost every Rabbi if not all Rabbi’s say… G-d left the world in our hands and what we say goes in the spiritual world too. E.g. if a bais din says its Rosh chodesh but its not the exact day...because the bais din said that then it IS rosh chodesh even though its actually not.
Hashem gave us the power to set rosh chodesh, etc. and yes, hashamyim shamyim lahashem v’ha’aretz nossan livnei adam...but it doesn’t mean we can be totally mevatel hilchos deoraisa...for rosh chodesh and such things it is set up in a way that we determine the date. but we don’t determine if there is such a thing as rosh chodesh. with the above case of kiddushin, we can make various issurim and punishments on a person to stop them from doing it, but the fact remains that if done, it still has some status. there are, for example, certain cases where it is assur for two people to marry, however, if they do marry, it is valid bedieved...it would seem that there would be some similarity here.
mevatel hilchos deoraisa...the rabbi’s add fences to what the torah allows and we must follow them...they aren’t mevatel it but rather making us mekadesh someone the proper way and taking away the risk of having the groom run off after using the girl. Just because the hilchos deoraisa allow you to write a single letter on shabbat doesnt mean that we should...the Rabbi’s forbade us to even touch the pencil let alone write the one letter in order to add a fence...they aren’t mevatel the halacha....you see my point?
Rosh Chodesh is a bad example because that was a power specifically given to Beis Din. There’s no great surprises there. But I’ll give you a case (two, actually) where Beis Din overrode actual Torah mitzvos - if the first day of Rosh HaShana or Sukkos falls on Shabbos, we do not blow shofar or shake a lulav, respectively. (Shaking a lulav the rest of Sukkos is d’Rabbanan; only the first day is d’Oraisa.)
Jewish...i see your point, but your examples don’t hold. with muktzah, the rabonim instituted fences to prevent actual chillul shabbos...they extended issurim(i think writing one letter might be patur aval asur in any case, but w/e)...as far as rosh hashanna and succos, those mitzvos are not suspended in all cases(i.e. at the beis hamikdash they are done on shabbos). the difference between all of these and the case above is that there is no resultant situation. as i said above, i would liken the biyah case to that of kinyan maos. both are kinyanim from the torah that the rabonim suspended. it seems that just like maos still is in effect to a certain extent, biyah should be too(maybe something along the lines of no marriage, but a get is still needed, etc.)
jalevenson… not to mention others on this board… you really should either translate into english what you say in hebrew or just use english words.
To get back to the point… The Beis Din didnt overrule the mitzvot of Lulav and Shofar, what they did is more took priority to the Mitzvah of Shabbos and doing this prevented carrying. I think that the reason they did that is that the mitzvah done more often takes preference… Rjack can give a more definate answer.
No, actually, they *did* kind of override it. There’s no inherent contradiction between, say, lulav and Shabbos. But because of a *potential* problem they said, “when this situation arises, we’re not doing the mitzvah.”
<<jalevenson… not to mention others on this board… you really should either translate into english what you say in hebrew or just use english words. >>
Sorry about that, just got a little carried away.
Translations:
Assur/issurim - forbidden/prohibitions
patur aval asur- forbidden, however not punishable in court (leave it up to G-d)
hilchos deoraisa- Torah laws
mevatel - nullify/disregard
Biya/Biah - marital relations
kiddushin - The first step in a marriage proccess, where a man gives the woman an object of some value or writes a contract stating that he is getting married or (maybe) has Biah with the woman. In all cases, both parties have to be aware that they are doing this act for the sake of marriage.
<< such a thing can work in a case such as lulav, but in a case where an action creates a given result, i don’t know if that result can be overridden. >>
That was my question, also. The Rabbi I discussed this with wasn’t 100% sure, but he seemed to think so.
