establishes the binding first stage of marriage, also called . It is more than an engagement, but it does not yet complete the second stage, .
-;
If he establishes through money, he must give no less than a in money or something worth a .
A is the minimum monetary value required here. He may give money itself or an object of equivalent value; the object need not be a coin.
״״,״״,״״,
He says to her, “You are hereby to me,” “You are hereby betrothed to me,” or “You hereby become my wife through this,”
.
and gives it to her in the presence of .
The declaration identifies the purpose of the transfer: he is giving the money or object to establish . An ordinary gift does not become merely because it has the required value. The giving must take place before two . As explained in Halachah 8, when they are already discussing their and she has agreed, that ongoing conversation can make a separate declaration unnecessary.
,,
It is the man who states words expressing that he acquires her as his wife,
.
and it is he who gives her the money.
“Acquires her” refers to establishing the marital bond. The procedure described here assigns both the declaration and the giving to the man. The next distinguishes what happens when the woman performs one or both of those actions.
Synopsis
To establish through money, the man gives the woman at least a or its equivalent before , with words expressing that she becomes to him.
When the Woman Gives the Money or Makes the Declaration
״״,״״,-.
If she gives the money and says to him, “I am hereby to you,” “I hereby become your wife,” or any other wording expressing acquisition, she is not .
,-.
Likewise, if she gives the money to him and he makes the declaration, she is not .
In the ordinary monetary procedure, the man must give to the woman. His declaration does not correct a transfer made in the opposite direction. This requirement follows the ’s wording, “When a man takes a wife” ( 24:1). A special exception is discussed in Chapter 5, Halachah 22.
,-.
If he gives the money and she makes the declaration, her consecration is doubtful.
Here, the man gives the money, but the woman supplies the declaration identifying it as . The uncertainty is whether this combination establishes the required act of consecration. She therefore needs a , a Jewish bill of divorce, before she may marry someone else. Nevertheless, the uncertainty does not establish the definite marital status required for a court to impose the death penalty for adultery.
Synopsis
When the woman gives the money, the ordinary monetary procedure does not establish , even if the man speaks. When he gives and she speaks, the are doubtful.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Woman Gives the Money or Makes the Declaration
When the Woman Gives the Money or Makes the Declaration
The presents two ways to understand the doubt when the man gives the money and the woman makes the declaration.
One explanation concerns his intention. Since he did not identify the payment as , his giving may have served some other purpose. Her words do not necessarily establish what he intended.
The second explanation concerns the legal requirements of the act. Even if his intention is understood, a question remains: Does the requirement that the man initiate demand only that he give the money, or must he also make the declaration?
These explanations locate the uncertainty in different places. The first asks what this man meant to do; the second asks whether this form of the act can establish .
If he establishes through a document, he writes on paper, a pottery shard, a leaf, or any material he chooses:
״״,״״,,
“You are hereby to me,” “You are hereby betrothed to me,” or similar wording,
.
and gives it to her in the presence of .
The written declaration serves as the instrument establishing . This is distinct from a , which records marital financial obligations.
The choice of writing material remains subject to the document’s legal requirements. For example, a leaf still attached to a tree, or another writing surface that must be severed, is excluded, following the corresponding restriction for a .
The next explains that the document must also be prepared specifically for this woman and with her consent.
Synopsis
through a document is established by giving the woman, before , a legally valid document containing words that her to him.
🔎Dig DeeperEstablishing Through a Document
Establishing Through a Document
Must the man also state aloud that he is consecrating her, or can the written declaration serve that purpose? The records a disagreement concerning this requirement.
The points to Halachah 18, which describes an agent declaring that the woman is through the document, as evidence that a spoken declaration is required. points instead to Halachah 7, which discusses wording that the man either says or writes, as evidence that a separate spoken declaration is unnecessary.
Preparing the Document for Her and With Her Consent
,.
He must write it specifically for the woman being , just as a must be written for its intended recipient.
The document must be prepared for this particular woman’s . A document written for another woman, or without that specific purpose, does not satisfy this requirement.
.
He may write it only with her consent.
Her consent is required at the writing stage, not merely when she receives the completed document. Because this document establishes her marital status, its preparation requires her agreement. This requirement differs from the law governing the writing of a .
,-
If he writes it without its being specifically for her, or specifically for her but without her consent—
,.
even if he subsequently gives it to her with her consent before , she is not .
Her agreement to receive the document does not correct a defect in how it was written. Writing specifically for her and writing with her consent are separate requirements; under the ’s ruling, either defect prevents this document from establishing .
Synopsis
The document must be written specifically for this woman and with her consent. According to the , her later consent to receive it does not compensate for either requirement being absent when it was written.
🔎Dig DeeperPreparing the Document for Her and With Her Consent
Preparing the Document for Her and With Her Consent
The requirement to write the document with the woman’s consent is disputed in 9b. The rules that a document written without that consent does not establish , even when she willingly accepts it afterward.
The treats that case as doubtful rather than definitely ineffective. Consequently, the woman cannot rely on the document’s defect to marry another man without a .
This disagreement concerns a document written specifically for her but without her consent. It should not be confused with the separate defect of a document that was not written specifically for her.
The requires the woman’s consent when the document is written. Her willingness to receive it afterward does not supply the consent that was missing at that earlier stage.
This can remind us to involve someone before making plans on their behalf. Booking a family visit and then asking a spouse, “That works for you, right?” leaves them responding to a decision already made. Even when we expect agreement, asking earlier gives the other person room to express a preference or explain a difficulty. A brief conversation before arranging things can make shared plans feel more genuinely shared.
Try today
Before arranging something that affects another person, ask for their input while the decision is still open.
If he establishes through intercourse, he says to her, “You are hereby to me…,” “You are hereby betrothed to me…,” or similar wording,
״״,
or, “You hereby become my wife through this act of intercourse,”
.
and enters seclusion with her before and has intercourse with her.
The hear his declaration and observe the couple entering seclusion. They do not observe the intercourse itself, which takes place privately.
This explains how such an act can establish . It does not permit choosing this method. Halachah 21 states that establishing through intercourse is prohibited, although the resulting remain legally effective.
,,
When a man establishes through intercourse, his intention is directed toward the completion of intercourse,
.
and she becomes when he completes that act.
The ruling treats his intention as directed toward the legally defined completion of intercourse. Here, “completion” means full penetration, not ejaculation or withdrawal. Consequently, in the case described, the consecration takes effect at that stage rather than at the initial stage of penetration.
-.
Whether he has intercourse with her in the usual manner or in the alternative manner, she is .
These terms refer respectively to vaginal and anal intercourse. The distinction here concerns whether the act can establish ; it does not remove the prohibition against using intercourse as the method of consecration.
Synopsis
Intercourse can establish when preceded by the required declaration and witnessed seclusion. The consecration takes effect at the legally defined completion of the act, although choosing this method is prohibited.
The words the man uses when establishing must express that he is acquiring a wife,
.
rather than that he is giving himself to her.
The declaration must describe the legal act being performed: she becomes to him. Wording that reverses that relationship does not establish , even if it expresses his wish to be her husband.
?,״״,״״,״״,-
What does this mean? If he says to her, or writes in the document he gives her, “I am hereby your husband,” “I am hereby your betrothed,” “I am hereby your man,” or similar wording—
.
no take effect at all.
These expressions make him the subject of the transfer: “I am yours.” The problem is not merely an unusual choice of words; the declaration describes the relationship in the opposite direction from the act required for .
״״,״״,
If he says or writes to her, “You are hereby my wife,” or “my betrothed,”
״״,״״,״״,
or “You are hereby acquired by me,” “You are hereby mine,” or “You are hereby in my domain,”
״״,״״,״״,
or “You are hereby bound to me,” “You are hereby taken by me as a wife,” or “You are hereby pledged to me,”
-.
or similar wording, she is .
The recognizes these expressions as wording that establishes the required marital relationship. They need not use the standard word “,” but they must convey the appropriate meaning. Halachah 8 adds that the woman must understand the language being used.
Synopsis
The declaration must express that the woman becomes to the man. Wording that instead gives the man to her does not establish .
🔎Dig DeeperWording That Establishes
Wording That Establishes
The includes “You are hereby pledged to me” among the effective declarations. The Hebrew expression is related to the wording used in Leviticus 19:20 concerning a maidservant designated for a man.
This association raises a question about using the expression for an ordinary woman’s . Although the Rambam includes this expression among the effective declarations, the ’s gloss to the places it among the expressions that produce doubtful when preceded by a discussion of . In that case, a is required before the woman may marry someone else.
If he says or writes to her, “You are hereby set apart for me,” “You are hereby designated for me,”
״״,״״,״״,
“You are hereby my helper,” “You are hereby my counterpart,” “You are hereby my rib,”
״״,״״,״״,״״-
“You are hereby enclosed for me,” “You are hereby under me,” “You are hereby bound to me,” or “You are hereby held by me”—
.
her consecration is doubtful.
These expressions might describe a marital relationship, but they might instead refer to her performing work for him.
Some of these Hebrew expressions sound similar when translated into English. In particular, “bound to me” here translates a different Hebrew expression from the one accepted in Halachah 6. The rulings concern the particular expressions the lists, not merely the English words used to represent them.
,;
This applies when he had first been speaking with her about .
The preceding conversation supplies the marital context in which his words might be understood as a declaration of . Even in that context, however, these expressions leave the consecration doubtful.
,.
But if he had not first been speaking with her about , these words do not give rise to concern.
Without that context, the listed expressions do not create even doubtful . The distinction is therefore between uncertain consecration, which requires a before she marries someone else, and words that establish no marital bond.
Synopsis
The listed uncertain expressions create doubtful only when preceded by a discussion of . Without that context, they have no effect.
A man may a woman in any language she understands,
,.
provided that the words in that language express that he acquires her, as we have explained.
A particular Hebrew formula is not indispensable. What matters is that the woman understands the language and that the declaration expresses the act of in the required direction, as described in Halachah 6.
,
If he was discussing with the woman and she agreed,
,,-
and he then proceeded to her without explaining his action or saying anything to her, but simply placed the money in her hand or had intercourse with her—
,.
since they are still engaged in that subject, this is sufficient, and he need not state his purpose explicitly.
Their ongoing conversation and her agreement already establish what the act means. He does not need to repeat that meaning in a separate declaration. This ruling concerns an act performed while they are still discussing the matter, not an unexplained transfer made after an unrelated conversation.
This differs from Halachah 7, where he introduces wording whose meaning is uncertain. Here he says nothing that raises a new question about the purpose already established by their conversation.
״״,
Likewise, he need not tell the to or divorce, “You are my .”
,.
Rather, once he consecrates or divorces her in their presence, she is or divorced, respectively.
The remain necessary; the formal announcement appointing them as is unnecessary. The final words refer to the corresponding result of each act: establishes consecration, and divorce ends the marriage.
Synopsis
may be expressed in any language the woman understands. When the couple are still discussing and she has agreed, their conversation can make a separate declaration unnecessary. The need not be formally addressed as .
If a man says to a woman, “Become to my half,” she is .
?״״,
What is this comparable to? To his saying to her, “You and another woman will be my wives,”
.
so that she has only half a husband.
The explains “my half” through the possibility that the man has another wife. The expression does not divide this woman’s marital status: she becomes fully to him, even though he may also be married to another woman.
״״-,
But if he says to her, “Half of you is to me,” she is not ,
.
because one woman cannot be married to two men.
The two declarations are not equivalent. “My half” can describe a husband shared with another wife. “Half of you,” however, attempts to establish only a partial marital bond with the woman. Her marital status cannot be divided in that way.
״״,.
Likewise, if he says, “You are hereby to me and to this other man,” she is not .
Here the declaration expressly attempts to make her the wife of two men. Since that relationship cannot be established, the declaration does not her to either of them.
Synopsis
“Become to my half” is effective because the expression can refer to his having another wife. Consecrating only half of the woman, or consecrating her to two men, is ineffective.
If he says to her, “Half of you is hereby to me for a , and half of you for a ,”
״״-
or says to her, “Half of you is hereby to me for half a , and your other half for half a ”—
.
she is .
Unlike the preceding ’s declaration concerning only “half of you,” these declarations expressly include both halves. The treats them as establishing with the whole woman. In the second formulation, the two amounts together provide the required value of one .
The declaration is treated as one continuous statement covering the whole woman, rather than two independent attempts to half of her.
״״,
If he says to her, “Half of you is to me for a today, and half of you for a tomorrow,”
The doubt is whether he separates the halves into ineffective partial consecrations, or describes one consecration beginning today and reaching completion tomorrow.
״״,
“Your two halves for a ,”
Does this expression the whole woman at once, or still attempt to her in halves?
״״,
or “Your two daughters to my two sons for a ,”
The father of the two sons acts as their authorized agent; the sons are adults. He gives one to the daughters’ father for the two proposed marriages. The question is whether the single payment between the two fathers suffices, or whether each daughter’s requires a separate .
״״,
“Your daughter is to me and your cow is sold to me for a ,”
״״-
or “Your daughter and your land to me for a ”—
The doubt concerns the allocation of the money. It may be divided between the daughter and the property, leaving less than a for . Alternatively, the entire may be for , with the cow or land acquired through a separate act of acquisition.
.
in all these cases, the consecration is doubtful.
The doubtful ruling applies to the entire list beginning with “half of you … today.” These declarations cannot be treated as definitely effective or dismissed as definitely ineffective. A is therefore required before the woman may marry someone else.
Synopsis
The accepts the opening declarations that both halves of one woman with a sufficient combined amount. The other listed formulations—dividing the timing, referring collectively to two halves, or combining multiple relationships or transactions—result in doubtful .
🔎Dig DeeperCombining Two Halves in One Declaration
Combining Two Halves in One Declaration
The disagrees with the ’s definite ruling in the opening cases. He treats those declarations as doubtful . The likewise rules that they require the stringencies of possible consecration rather than establishing it with certainty.
The Ra’avad’s objection points to the later case, “Your two halves for a .” The Rambam himself treats that formulation as doubtful, even though it also refers to the whole woman and a total of one . This raises the question of why the opening formulations should receive a definite ruling.
The practical distinction is between certain and doubtful , not between requiring a and allowing the woman to leave without one. Under the dissenting ruling, she still needs a before marrying someone else.
A father can establish his daughter’s without her consent while she is a minor.
,,
Likewise, while she is a , authority over her remains in his hands,
(,).
as it states, “I gave my daughter to this man” ( 22:16).
A is a girl in the legally defined intermediate stage after minority. A is one who has reached the subsequent stage of maturity, when her father’s authority over her ends. The detailed criteria for these stages appear in Chapter 2.
This establishes the legal effectiveness of the father’s act. Halachah 19 separately instructs him to wait until his daughter grows up and expresses whom she wishes to marry.
.
The money of her belongs to her father.
,,.
He is also entitled to what she finds, to her earnings, and to her payment.
“What she finds” refers to ownerless property she acquires by finding it. The payment is the payment due under the marriage settlement when the conditions for collecting it arise. The following passage identifies the circumstances in which these rights remain with her father.
,,.
If she is divorced or widowed after , he remains entitled to all these until she becomes a .
is the binding first stage of marriage, established through . Here, the marriage ended before , the second stage. Ending the relationship at this earlier stage does not itself remove her from her father’s authority. The next explains the different result after .
,.
A father may therefore accept his daughter’s from the day she is born until she becomes a .
,-.
Even if she is a deaf woman unable to speak, or a woman lacking legal mental competence, and her father consecrates her, she has the full legal status of a married woman.
The father acts through the authority the gives him while she remains under his authority. Consequently, the effectiveness of these does not depend on her ability to perform the legal act herself.
,;
If she is three years and one day old, through intercourse can take effect with her father’s consent.
-,.
Below that age, if her father attempts to her through intercourse, she is not .
This age threshold concerns the legal effectiveness of this particular method. Below it, the act cannot establish . The threshold does not permit using this method: Halachah 21 prohibits establishing through intercourse, and Halachah 19 addresses the Sages’ instruction to wait until she grows up and expresses whom she wishes to marry.
Synopsis
A father has authority to accept his daughter’s during her minority and her stage as a . The listed financial rights also belong to him under the stated conditions. The legal effectiveness of these acts must be distinguished from the restrictions governing how and when should be arranged.
Once the daughter becomes a , her father no longer has authority over her.
,.
She is like other women, whose can take effect only with their consent.
Her father can no longer establish her through his own parental authority. The decision now rests with her.
-,
Likewise, if her father married her off and she was then widowed or divorced during his lifetime, she is under her own authority,
.
even though she is still a minor.
“Married her off” here means that she entered , the second stage of marriage. This is the distinction from the preceding , which discussed a relationship ending after alone.
,.
Once she has entered marriage, her father no longer has authority over her.
Her father’s authority does not return when that marriage ends. Being “under her own authority” describes the end of his parental power over her ; it does not turn a minor into an adult or remove the separate legal limitations of minority.
Synopsis
A father’s authority over his daughter’s ends when she becomes a or enters . After , that authority does not return even if she is widowed or divorced while still a minor.
If she accepts before becoming a , without her father’s consent, she is not ,
;
even if her father agrees after the attempted .
This concerns a daughter who is still under her father’s authority, whether she is a minor or a . According to the , his later approval cannot make the earlier act effective: the necessary consent was absent when the were given.
,.
Even if she is widowed or divorced from those attempted , she is not thereby forbidden to a .
Since these never created a marital bond, the man’s death does not give her the status of a widow from that relationship, and a divorce document does not give her the status of a divorcee from it. The restrictions against a marrying a divorcee, or a marrying a widow, therefore do not arise from these ineffective .
-;
Both she and her father can prevent the .
This phrase addresses a related question: when the daughter receives the herself, whose objection can prevent them from taking effect?
The explains that even when the father consented at the time, the daughter’s own objection can matter because she received the herself; her father did not perform the act on her behalf. He includes her subsequent objection in this explanation. This is a specific interpretation of the daughter’s own receipt while under her father’s authority, not a general right to undo completed .
-.
Whether she accepts the in his presence or outside his presence, she is not .
The ruling continues to concern received without the father’s consent. The daughter’s receiving them in his presence does not, by itself, change the stated requirement for his consent.
Synopsis
According to the , a daughter still under her father’s authority cannot establish by accepting them without his consent. His later approval does not validate the act, and the ineffective relationship does not create the marriage restrictions associated with widowhood or divorce.
🔎Dig Deeper Accepted Without the Father’s Consent
Accepted Without the Father’s Consent
The understands the statement that both the daughter and her father can object as referring to a case in which she accepted in her father’s presence while he remained silent.
, in the Kesef Mishneh, explains that the daughter can object even when her father consented at the time of the , because she received them herself rather than through an act performed by him. His discussion includes her subsequent objection; it is not merely a statement that she can refuse the initial receipt.
The records the ’s ruling that the father’s later consent does not validate the , but also records a dissenting position under which his later consent can have legal effect. These positions must be distinguished from the Kesef Mishneh’s explanation of the daughter’s objection when the father consented at the time.
If there is doubt whether the daughter has become a —
,
whether her father consecrates her without her consent,
-
or she accepts herself without her father’s consent—
;
her consecration is doubtful.
The uncertainty concerns who has authority at that moment. If she has become a , her own consent is decisive and her father cannot act independently. If she has not, she remains under his authority. An act relying on only one of them therefore leaves the doubtful.
,.
She therefore requires a because of the doubt.
A is needed before she may marry someone else, since the possibility of valid cannot be dismissed.
,
A man may appoint an agent to a woman for him,
,;
whether a particular woman or a woman chosen from among other women.
The agent acts on the man’s behalf. The authorization may identify a particular woman or leave the choice open; the agent must act within the authority given to him.
,
Likewise, an adult woman may appoint an agent to receive her ,
,.
whether from a particular man or from a man chosen from among other men.
This concerns a woman who has authority over her own . Her agent receives them on her behalf. A minor cannot independently appoint such an agent.
,.
A father may likewise appoint an agent to receive his daughter’s while she is under his authority.
״״.
A man may also tell his minor daughter, “Go and receive your .”
Here, she receives the with her father’s authorization. This differs from the preceding ’s case, in which she acted without his consent. Her ability to receive them in this circumstance does not establish a general right for a minor to appoint an agent or act as one.
Two explanations are offered for this special case. The and treat the father’s instruction as his agreement that the money be given directly to his daughter. Another, attributed to , recognizes a special ability for her to receive her own because the act is for her benefit. Neither explanation grants minors a general capacity to act as agents.
Synopsis
When it is uncertain whether a daughter has become a , performed with only her consent or only her father’s consent are doubtful. A man, an independently acting adult woman, or a father acting within his authority may appoint an agent for . A father may also authorize his minor daughter to receive her own .
Anyone appointing an agent to receive must make the appointment in the presence of two .
This includes a woman appointing someone to receive her and a father appointing someone to receive his daughter’s. The agent’s acceptance will establish the marital bond on the recipient’s behalf. According to the , the authority to perform that acceptance must itself be established before two .
,,
But a man who appoints an agent to a woman for him need not make the appointment before ,
,.
because to the man’s appointment serve only to establish the truth of the matter.
For this appointment, provide evidence that the man actually authorized the agent. Their presence is not what makes the appointment legally effective.
,,
Therefore, if the agent and the man who sent him acknowledge the appointment, they do not need ,
,-
as with an agent appointed to deliver a , an agent authorized to separate for someone, and similar cases—
is the portion of produce set aside for a . In both examples, the agent performs an authorized act on another person’s behalf. The comparison concerns the appointment of an agent to deliver a , not an agent appointed by a woman to receive one.
,,.
In all these matters, a person’s agent acts in his place, and are not required.
The final statement continues the discussion of appointments for which serve as evidence. It does not cancel the opening requirement for two when appointing an agent to receive .
The themselves must still take place before . This distinguishes the requirements for appointing the agent from the requirements for the act the agent later performs.
Synopsis
An agent appointed to receive must be appointed before two . An agent appointed by a man to a woman does not require to his appointment when the appointment is acknowledged, although the themselves still require .
🔎Dig Deeper to an Agent’s Appointment
to an Agent’s Appointment
The requires two when appointing an agent to receive . questions why an acknowledged appointment should suffice for the man’s agent but not for the woman’s agent. The accordingly requires treating received through an appointment without stringently. The woman requires a before marrying someone else.
A separate disagreement concerns the man’s appointment of an agent. The Rambam compares it to appointing someone to deliver a , for which to the appointment are unnecessary. The challenges the comparison: the delivery agent holds a formal divorce document, and possession of that document provides evidence of his authority. An agent sent to perform does not necessarily have comparable evidence.
These disputes concern how the agent’s authority must be established. They do not remove the requirement for to the themselves.
Therefore, if a man appoints two agents to a woman for him, and they go and her—
,
they serve both as his agents and as the to the ,
.
and they need not her for him in the presence of two additional .
Acting on the man’s behalf does not, by itself, disqualify an agent from witnessing the act. Provided both agents are otherwise eligible , they can also serve as the two to the .
The and the qualify this ruling. It applies when the are performed with a document worth less than a , or with money whose receipt the woman acknowledges.
If she denies receiving money entrusted to the agents, their testimony also concerns their own responsibility for that money. Establishing that they delivered it would protect them against a financial claim or the need to swear concerning its disposition. This personal interest affects their eligibility as . In the disputed-receipt case described by the , the are therefore treated as doubtful.
Synopsis
Two agents who are eligible can also witness the , without an additional pair. When a dispute over receipt of the money gives them a personal financial interest, the treats the as doubtful.
Everyone is eligible to act as an agent, except a deaf person unable to speak, a person lacking legal mental competence, and a minor,
.
because they lack the legal capacity required for this act.
The agent must possess the legal capacity to act on another person’s behalf. The exclusions here concern the defined legal categories named by the ; “a deaf person unable to speak” does not mean every person with a hearing impairment.
,,
A non-Jew is also ineligible, because he is not a member of the covenant,
(,),-
and it states, “Thus you too shall set aside” (Numbers 18:28), including an agent—
,.
just as you are members of the covenant, your agent must also be a member of the covenant, excluding a non-Jew.
The verse concerns separating . The words “you too” are understood to include someone acting as an agent, while also requiring that the agent share the covenantal status of those addressed. The applies that requirement to the agency discussed here.
,-
A servant, however, although he may act as an agent in a monetary matter—
,
is ineligible to act as an agent for or divorce,
.
because he is not subject to the legal framework of divorce and .
“Servant” here refers to the legal category of a Canaanite servant. This is a particular legal status, not an ordinary employee or hired household worker. His ability to act as an agent in financial transactions does not extend to and divorce, whose marital framework does not apply to him.
Synopsis
An agent for must possess the required legal capacity and covenantal status. A Canaanite servant, although eligible for monetary agency, cannot serve as an agent for or divorce.
When the man’s agent performs the , he says to her, “You are hereby to so-and-so through this money,” or “through this document.”
The declaration identifies the man whom the agent represents. The agent performs the act, but the woman becomes to the man who appointed him.
-״״,
If the woman’s agent receives the , the man says to him, “So-and-so, who appointed you, is hereby to me,”
״״,״״,״״,.
and the agent says to him, “I have her to you,” “I have betrothed her to you,” “I have given her to you as a wife,” or similar wording.
-״״,
Likewise, when a man performs through the woman’s father, he says to him, “Your daughter so-and-so is hereby to me,”
״״.
and the father says to him, “I have her to you.”
The father acts within his authority over his daughter’s , as explained earlier. The woman’s agent acts through her appointment. In each case, the declaration identifies the woman whose marital status is being established.
״״-.
If the father or agent says “Yes,” that is sufficient.
.
Even if he remains silent, it is sufficient.
The father or agent need not repeat a complete declaration when receiving the . His silence here accompanies his receipt of them in the transaction being described; silence alone, without the required act of receipt, does not establish .
,,-.
If they were discussing the matter, and he gave the to the father or agent without explaining his action or saying anything, that is sufficient.
As in Halachah 8, the ongoing conversation can establish the purpose of the giving. A separate declaration is unnecessary when the transaction is already understood.
-,.
If he performs the through a document, he may write it only with the consent of the father or agent.
This applies the writing-stage requirement of Halachah 4 to the person authorized to receive the document. Consent to its preparation is required; willingness to accept it afterward does not replace that requirement under the ’s ruling.
,,,.
In all matters concerning , the rules governing the man’s dealings with the woman likewise govern an agent’s dealings with another agent or with the father.
The parties may act through those authorized to represent them, but the requirements of the remain. The wording and the person whose consent is needed are applied to the corresponding roles in the transaction.
Synopsis
When are performed through an agent or the woman’s father, the declarations identify the intended husband and wife. A brief response, or receipt in silence, can suffice in the stated circumstances. A document must be prepared with the consent of the authorized recipient.
Personal Involvement and Choosing a Marriage Partner
.
It is a greater for a man to his wife personally than through his agent.
.
Likewise, it is a greater for the woman to receive her personally than through an agent.
The preceding established that authorized agents can perform the act. Here, the distinguishes legal effectiveness from the preferred way to fulfill the : personal participation is preferable.
-;
Although a father has authority to his daughter, while she is a minor or a , to whomever he chooses, it is not proper to do so.
,״״.
Rather, the Sages instructed that a man should not his daughter while she is a minor, but should wait until she grows up and says, “I want so-and-so.”
The father’s legal authority does not determine how he should exercise it. The instruction is to wait for his daughter to grow up and express her own choice. This explains why the earlier rulings about the effectiveness of a father’s act are not instructions to arrange such .
,.
Likewise, it is not proper for a man to a minor.
,-
He should not a woman until he has seen her and finds her suitable,
,,.
lest she fail to find favor in his eyes, leading him to divorce her or to have relations with her while he hates her.
The concern is a commitment made before he knows whether he wishes to live with this woman as his wife. Seeing her and finding her suitable must precede the binding act of .
Synopsis
Personal participation in is preferable to acting through an agent. A father should wait for his daughter to grow up and express her choice, and a man should see his intended wife and find her suitable before consecrating her.
✦Live ItBe personally involved
Be personally involved
The allows through an agent. Yet he says that both the man and the woman should preferably participate personally. A valid act and the preferred way to fulfill a are not always the same.
That distinction can prompt us to notice where our own involvement matters. When a friend needs a meal, arranging a delivery may be a real kindness. Sometimes, though, we can also make the time to bring it ourselves and ask how they are doing. Before handing off a worthwhile task, consider whether there is a part you could meaningfully do yourself.
Try today
Choose one act of kindness and take personal responsibility for one part of it.
When a man establishes through intercourse, these are recognized by law.
,.
Likewise, a document consecrates her under law.
,(,;,)-
Just as a document effects divorce, as it states, “He shall write her a document of severance” ( 24:1; 24:3)—
.
so a document effects entry into the marital bond.
The comparison concerns the legal force of a document. A ends the marital bond, while a document of establishes it. “Entry” here means , the first stage; it does not mean that giving the document also completes .
,,
Money likewise establishes under law, while its interpretation comes through the Sages,
(,;,)-
as it states, “When a man takes a wife” ( 22:13; 24:1)—
:,
and the Sages explained: this taking is accomplished through money,
(,).
as it states, “I have given the money for the field; take it from me” (Genesis 23:13).
The Sages connect the ’s language of “taking” a wife with the language of taking money in the purchase of a field. This explains how money is identified as a means of establishing .
“Through the Sages” describes how the ’s meaning is explained. Here, the explicitly states that monetary have the force of law; he is not classifying them as merely a later rabbinic enactment.
Synopsis
Intercourse, a document, and money can all establish under law. The Sages’ interpretation identifies money as a means of through the ’s use of the language of “taking.”
Although the underlying law is as described, all Israel have already adopted the practice of establishing through money or something of monetary value.
All three methods discussed in the preceding have legal force. The established practice, however, is to use money or an object worth money.
,.
If he wishes to establish through a document, he may do so as well.
.
But one must not choose intercourse as the method of establishing .
The customary use of money does not prohibit the document method. Intercourse is different: although it can establish the marital bond, it is not a permitted way to initiate .
,,
A man who establishes through intercourse is subjected to lashes imposed by rabbinic authority,
,
so that the Jewish people should not become unrestrained in this matter,
.
even though his are fully effective.
The punishment addresses the improper method, while the marital bond remains legally binding. The couple cannot treat the prohibition as grounds for disregarding the resulting .
Synopsis
The established practice is to perform through money or an object of value, and using a document is also permitted. through intercourse is prohibited and punishable by rabbinic lashes, although it remains legally effective.
Likewise, a man who performs without a prior marriage arrangement, or who performs in the marketplace,
-,
is subjected to lashes imposed by rabbinic authority, even though his are fully effective,
A prior marriage arrangement means that the proposed match was discussed and arranged beforehand. It is distinct from , which creates the binding marital relationship. The identifies two improper circumstances: proceeding without that preparation, and performing the act in the marketplace.
,
so that this practice should not accustom people to sexual immorality,
.
and resemble the prostitution that existed before the giving of the .
The concern is the manner in which the relationship is initiated. The seeks to prevent marriage from being approached like a casual encounter. The comparison explains the restriction; it does not cancel the legal effect of properly constituted performed in those circumstances.
Synopsis
performed without a prior marriage arrangement or in the marketplace remains binding, but the man is subject to rabbinic lashes because of the improper manner in which the relationship was initiated.
Whenever a man consecrates a woman, whether personally or through an agent,
,,
he or his agent must recite the blessing before the ,
,.
and then perform the , following the practice of reciting a blessing before performing a .
The blessing precedes the act that establishes the marital bond. Appointing an agent does not remove this requirement; the includes performed through an agent in the same rule.
-,
If he performs the without reciting the blessing, he must not recite it afterward,
;,.
because that would be a blessing in vain; the act has already been completed.
Under the ’s ruling, this blessing cannot be made up after the . Its omission does not undo the marital bond, but once the act is complete, the opportunity to recite this blessing has passed.
Synopsis
The blessing must precede the , whether the man acts personally or through an agent. According to the , if it was omitted, it must not be recited afterward.
🔎Dig DeeperReciting the Blessing Before
Reciting the Blessing Before
The ’s wording assigns the blessing to the man or his agent. explains the practice of having the officiating rabbi recite it, so that a groom who cannot recite the blessing will not be embarrassed.
The Rambam rules that an omitted blessing may not be recited after the . The likewise rules against reciting it at the later . The , however, records the practice of reciting the omitted blessing at that later stage, even when considerable time has passed. This permission concerns reciting the omitted blessing at , rather than permission to recite it at any later time.
Sources: Hagahot Maimoniot on 3:23; and Rema, 34:1, 3.
“Blessed are You, , our God, King of the universe,
,,
who has sanctified us through His commandments and separated us from forbidden relationships,
,
forbidden to us those who are betrothed,
This refers to the prohibition against marital relations during , before the marriage proceeds to . Even a woman to this man is not yet permitted to him through alone.
.
and permitted to us those married through and .
The permission concerns marital relations within one’s own marriage. It does not refer to married women generally. Although the blessing mentions before , it is naming the elements of marriage, not reversing their legal sequence.
׳,״.
Blessed are You, , who sanctifies Israel.”
.
This is the blessing of .
The ’s wording here differs from formulations familiar from many wedding ceremonies. The gives “commanded us concerning” the forbidden relationships, while the discusses wording that explicitly says “those married to us” ( 34:1; 34:3).
,.
The people have adopted the custom of reciting this blessing over a cup of wine or beer.
,,
If wine is available, he first recites the blessing over the wine,
,.
then recites the blessing of , and afterward consecrates her.
There are two blessings in this sequence: the blessing over the wine and the blessing of . Both precede the act of .
,.
If neither wine nor beer is available, he recites the blessing on its own.
The cup accompanies the blessing as a custom. Its absence does not prevent reciting the blessing of before performing the .
Synopsis
The blessing of acknowledges the sanctity and boundaries of marriage. It is customarily recited over wine or beer, but when neither is available, the blessing is recited without a cup.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 3 at a glance
Establishing
The chapter explains the acts and wording that establish , who may perform them, and the blessing that precedes them.
When the woman gives the money, the ordinary monetary procedure does not establish , even if the man speaks. When he gives and she speaks, the are doubtful.
The accepts the opening declarations that both halves of one woman with a sufficient combined amount. The other listed formulations—dividing the timing, referring collectively to two halves, or combining multiple relationships or transactions—result in doubtful .
Two agents who are eligible can also witness the , without an additional pair. When a dispute over receipt of the money gives them a personal financial interest, the treats the as doubtful.
The established practice is to perform through money or an object of value, and using a document is also permitted. through intercourse is prohibited and punishable by rabbinic lashes, although it remains legally effective.
The blessing of acknowledges the sanctity and boundaries of marriage. It is customarily recited over wine or beer, but when neither is available, the blessing is recited without a cup.
פרק ג
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-four halachos.