Why We Perform Kiddushin Using a Ring
The first Mishnah in Kiddushin (2a) teaches that a woman can be acquired in three ways: בכסף בשטר ובביאה – “With money, a document, or with marital relations.”
Why is money the first item mentioned in the Mishnah?
The Meiri brings two answers: 1) מפני שהוא ראש המדברים בכל מקום – “The one with money is always able to speak first.” 2) It is the first method mentioned in the pasuk, the pasuk says כי יקח, and we learn from here that money works for kiddushin.
Kesef or Shoveh Kesef
The Mishnah teaches that a woman becomes mekudeshes [betrothed] through kesef [money] or shaveh kesef [an item with monetary value]. Accordingly, a man may give a coin to a woman for kiddushin. The Rema (Even HaEzer 27:1) writes, however, that the present practice is not to give a coin for kiddushin, but to give a ring. What is the reason for this practice?
The Beis Shmuel (Even HaEzer 27:1, 31:5) cites the Mordechai who writes that one should not use a coin to be mekadesh a woman. The Beis Shmuel explains that this was a rabbinic enactment.
Question and Answer of the Avnei Miluim
The Avnei Miluim (siman 27:2) points out that there is no Mordechai which discusses this, and seemingly the Beis Shmuel is referring to a Hagaos Mordechai. However, this is still difficult as the Hagaos Mordechai (Kiddushin 488), does not write that one should not use a coin. Rather, he questions why a coin may be used for kiddushin. The Gemara in Kiddushin (8a) explains that if a woman thinks that the object which the man gives is of a certain value and the object is of a different value, the kiddushin does not take effect. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (45b) rules that a coin may not be used to make a kinyan chalipin because the value which a person ascribes to a coin is the stamp or form on the coin (since the coin is unusable without the stamp), but the stamp on the coin often changes (such as when a new king is appointed), and thus it may not be used for a kinyan chalipin. Accordingly, one also should not be permitted to use a coin for kiddushin, since the woman relies on the stamp, and the stamp will change.
Although the Hagaos Mordechai raises this question, he does not discourage the use of a coin for kiddushin. Additionally, the Avnei Miluim cites various Gemara’s where we see clearly that money may be used.
The Avnei Milu'im answers the question of the Hagaos Mordechai based on the words of Rashi in Bava Metzia (45b, d.h. Matbe'a). Rashi writes that a coin without a stamp may not be used for kinyan chalipin because chalipin must be performed with a complete object. A coin without a stamp is an incomplete object. According to Rashi, the Gemara in Bava Metzia does not mean that the reason why a coin may not be used for a kinyan chalipin is that its true value is not what people assume it to be. Rather, the Gemara means that even when it bears its stamp (and its value is what people assume it to be), it is considered incomplete since the stamp might change tomorrow. With regard to kiddushin, this concern poses no problem because even an incomplete object may be used for kiddushin as long as it is worth a perutah. Since the coin with a stamp is worth what the woman thinks it is worth, the kiddushin takes effect.
He also cites the Nimukei Yosef who learns that the problem with using a coin with a stamp for chalipin is that by chalipin one wants the item to remain (רוצה בקיומו) and since the stamp on the coin often changes it is not suitable, however, by kiddushin there is no need for the item to remain, therefore, it is ok.
The Approach of the Sefer HaMakneh and the Rogatchover
The Sefer HaMakneh (Chiddushim to Even HaEzer 50:1) and the Tzofnas Pane’ach (Hilchos Ishus 3:1) point out that the custom to be mekadesh a woman with a ring may have been adopted when it became the practice to perform the nisu’in immediately after the kiddushin (instead of some months after the kiddshin). When the nisu’in is performed, all the wife's property becomes nichsei milug and the husband is entitled to its produce (peros). If the husband would give the wife money and then perform nisu'in immediately afterwards, the money would be worth much less to her since she would have rights only to the body (guf) of the coin and not to the peros (the spending value) of the coin.
Such a situation would be akin to a case in which the man tricked the woman about the amount of money he intended to give for kiddushin, or to a case in which the man keeps some of the amount for himself. Therefore, the Chachamim instituted the custom that the man gives a ring, an object which the woman wears. The Gemara in Kesubos (54a) teaches that a married woman retains the rights to the use (peros) of her clothing and personal objects. When she receives a ring, she receives the full value of the ring even when the nisu'in is performed immediately afterward. (The Tzofnas Pane'ach cites the Yerushalmi in Nazir 5:2 which states that a woman's jewelry is considered her possession and not the possession of her husband.)
In the times when kiddushin and nisu’in were separate, the woman had rights to both the guf [body] and the peros [fruits] between the kiddushin and nisu’in and if she wanted, she could spend the money. However, nowadays there is no gap between the kiddushin and nisu’in and once she becomes a nesuah, she only has a right to the guf and not the peros. Since she doesn’t have any rights to the peros she isn’t able to spend the money, and all she can do is keep it without spending it, which isn’t worth very much.
The Minhag to Perform Kiddushin with a Ring
The Chinuch (Mitzvah 552) writes: דנהגו לקדש בטבעת, כדי שתתן אל לבה לעולם שהיא קנויה לאותו האיש ולא תזנה תחתיו ולא תמרוד בו ותתן לו יקר והוד לעולם כעבד לאדוניו, ובכן יהיה שבתם וקימתם בשלום לעולם ויתקיים הישוב ברצון האל שחפץ בו, ולכן נהגו ישראל לקדש בטבעת להיות בידה תמיד למזכרת - “The custom is to get married using a ring, in order that the woman should feel in her heart that she has been acquired by her husband, and she shouldn’t live with anyone else, and betray her husband. And she should always honor her husband and be loyal to him, like a slave to a master. Through this they should live peacefully and happily together. Therefore, we get married using a ring, so that there is a constant reminder.”
The Chinuch
The sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 552) writes that the source for the practice to give a ring for kiddushin is the consideration to provide the woman with something which will be in front of her always and remind her of her devotion to her husband (as the pasuk says, “Tie them on your fingers, inscribe them on the tablet of your heart” (Mishlei 7:3), a reference to the mitzvos of the Torah). (For the lashon of the Chinuch in Hebrew, see the text box above.)
Additional Reasons
The Likutei Maharich (Hanhagos Yom Chuppah) explains that a ring is something that connects two things together, like we find by the keroshim in the Mishkan, that every two keroshim had a ring above them connecting them, the same was with the choshen and the ephod. Therefore, we perform kiddushin with a ring to hint to the fact that through kiddushin, there should be a connection between the husband and wife.
Some say, a ring is round and has no ends, this hints at the fact that the covenant between husband and wife should be an everlasting covenant with no end.
The Biur HaGra based on the Tikunei Zohar (Tikkun 5) says that the ring is closed on all sides, and this hints to the fact that the woman is now prohibited to the entire world.
The Rema himself cites the Tikunei Zohar (beginning of Tikun 5, and Tikun 10, page 25b) as a source for the practice to give a ring for kiddushin.
Double Ring Ceremonies
In religious circles the chosan gives the kallah a ring under the chuppah in order to acquire her as his wife and she doesn’t give anything back. However, in some less religious circles, they have adopted the haskofah of the non-Jew’s, and they believe that marriage is all about equality, and that both husband and wife have equal rights. To highlight this, they like to keep everything equal under the chuppah, and they believe that if the chosan gives a kallah a ring, to keep things equal she should be giving one back. This is known as a “double-ring wedding ceremony”.
Below I would like to discuss the potential issues of what could be wrong with such a thing, and if halachah lema’aseh such a thing does take place, is the kiddushin valid?
R' Moshe Feinstein’s First Teshuvah
Being that this shailah is quite common in America, it is not surprising that R’ Moshe Feinstein has no less than three Teshuvos about this topic. In the first Teshuvah written in 5729 (Even HaEzer, 3:18), R’ Moshe ruled that such a ceremony is certainly valid bedieved, however, lechatchilah it is prohibited for several reasons:
- If this is a non-Jewish practice, it is certainly forbidden under the Torah prohibition against adopting non-Jewish customs.
- Even if it is not a non-Jewish practice, it is still forbidden, because it could engender a misconception about the nature of the marriage ceremony (kiddushin). It could cause people to believe that a woman can affect kiddushin by giving a man a ring, and that a woman who did so is married, when she actually isn’t.
- Fundamentally, there is a “great prohibition” to exchange rings, because it will cause many people to forget the halachah of kiddushin, and causing the forgetting of halachah is prohibited even where it will not cause practical harm.
R’ Moshe Feinstein’s Second Teshuvah
In a subsequent Teshuvah dated 5740 (Even HaEzer 4:13), R’ Moshe suggests that such marriages may not even be valid bedieved, because it is not clear that the parties are intending to execute a proper halachic kiddushin, which must be performed by the man. He concludes that “this is a matter of great doubt to me, for which I have not yet found a proof.”
R’ Moshe Feinstein’s Third Teshuvah
Yavo hakasuv hashlishi veyachria beineihem: In yet a third Teshuvah dated 5741 (Even HaEzer 4:32, ois 2), R’ Moshe clarified that there is no contradiction between his two earlier Teshuvos. In the first one, he was discussing a wedding at which a legitimate (kosher) rabbi officiated, and in that case, the chosan’s giving of the ring constitutes a valid kiddushin. The fact that the rabbi subsequently permitted the kallah to perform “a mere nonsensical act” does not invalidate the proper kiddushin that already occurred, whereas in the second, he was discussing a Reform rabbi who touted the double-ring ceremony as essential to kiddushin.
The Opinion of R’ Asher Weiss
R’ Asher Weiss (Shu”t Minchas Asher 1:72 ois 1) also maintains that a double-ring ceremony is invalid, at least if it serves as an indication that the spouses are embracing “the entire concept of marriage of the modern world, according to which there is merely mutual connection and obligations, and equality,” as opposed to the Torah perspective, in which a man is koneh a woman. If this is indeed their intention, then the marriage is not valid. (He is discussing marriages at which Reform and Conservative rabbis officiated and does not discuss the status of such a marriage with an Orthodox officiant.)
The Opinion of Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Hershel Schachter
Both Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Hershel Schachter maintain that once the chosan gives the kallah a ring, they are married. Whatever happens after the delivery of the ring is irrelevant in their view. (This does not mean that they endorse the practice, only that it does not invalidate the marriage.)
How to Conduct a Double Ring Ceremony When There is No Way Out
In R’ Moshe’s 5740 Teshuvah, he provides guidance about how to handle a ring exchange when absolutely necessary:
When a particular rabbi finds himself at some wedding, and they are compelling him, and he is forced by the need to maintain his livelihood to perform the kiddushin specifically in such a manner that the kallah will also give a ring to the chosan, he must inform them, and the witnesses as well, that it is only the chosan’s giving of the ring to the kallah that constitutes the kinyan (act of solemnization) of the kiddushin, and the kallah’s gift to the chosan has no connection to the kiddushin at all, but is a mere gift. And her statement (when giving the ring) should utilize language indicating that this is a gift of love and affection now that he is already her husband.
R’ Asher Weiss (Shu”t Minchas Asher, Vol. 3 end of siman 98), too, adds a caveat to his view that double-ring ceremonies are presumptively invalid: If it is possible that the officiating rabbi explained to the couple that it is actually the man who performs the kiddushin, but the woman chose to emulate the non-Jewish custom and give the man a ring nonetheless, then the fact that a double-ring ceremony was performed cannot completely vitiate the validity of the marriage, and in such a marriage a get would be required.
May A Husband Wear Such a Ring Subsequent to the Kiddushin
In the Teshuvah written in 5741, R’ Moshe discusses if the chosan is allowed to wear the ring after the wedding and he writes that he is allowed to, as wearing the ring after the wedding is “for adornment, and perhaps also as an indication that he is married” and does not imply that the marriage ceremony involved exchanging rings. He concludes that “although this (practice) is perhaps ugly (mechu’ar) to those who fear Hashem, there would seem to be no basis to prohibit it.”
If a Person Was Mekadesh a Woman with a Diamond Ring — Does He Need to Repeat the Kiddushin?
Question: The accepted minhag is to be mekadesh [betroth] a woman with a plain ring, without any stones, so that the kallah knows precisely the value of the ring and the item with which she is being mekudeshes, avoiding any possible misunderstanding about its worth. However, an incident occurred where a couple used a ring with diamonds. Is it necessary for them to repeat the kiddushin?
Answer: The Rema (Even HaEzer, 31:2) writes that one should not be mekadesh a woman with a diamond ring, based on the opinions of Rabbeinu Tam and the Ran. The reasoning is that even if he was mekadesh her without specifying—and he did not say, “Be mekadesh yourself with this ring which is worth fifty zuz”—there is still concern that the kallah might mistakenly assume the diamond is worth much more than its actual value. Therefore, we are concerned that she might have only agreed to be mekudeshes under this mistaken impression, and without it, she might not have agreed at all. This would render the kiddushin invalid due to kiddushei taus [mistaken, or misled, kiddushin]. Therefore, it is considered a safek kiddushin [doubt whether kiddushin took place] that requires repeating the kiddushin. See further in Otzar HaPoskim (31:14) who cites many Achronim on this topic.
However, the Pischei Teshuvah (31:4) quotes R’ Yaakov of Lisa (author of Nesivos HaMishpat and Chavas Daas), who writes that in modern times, since kallah’s have their faces covered and cannot see the ring, the concern of overestimating the ring’s value does not apply, and thus the kiddushin is valid. Similarly, other Acharonim have written in this vein.
If the chosan informs the kallah and the Rav beforehand that he intends to be mekadesh her with a diamond ring, lechatchilah, this should be prevented. However, bedieved, the kiddushin is valid, especially today when the mesader kiddushin asks the witnesses if the ring is worth at least a perutah and the kallah hears and consents. And if he states that she should be mekadesh herself with a perutah, the kiddushin is certainly valid.
We may suggest yet another reason to validate the kiddushin in such a case, based on a discussion in the poskim regarding a case where a chosan purchased a ring under the assumption that it was pure silver, only to later discover it was merely silver-plated. Despite this error, leading poskim have ruled that there is no need to repeat the kiddushin, even though the chosan might have voided the purchase had he known beforehand. This is because we assume the chosan does not want the marriage invalidated post-facto, since this would retroactively render his intimacy into illicit relations (oseh be’ilaso be’ilas z’nus). See Kovetz Beis Dovid (Choshen Mishpat, p. 250), where Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein cites Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l on this question.
Furthermore, even if the chosan intends to return the ring to the seller, some poskim argue that there is no need to repeat the kiddushin. This is because the seller is required, according to Choshen Mishpat, to refund the payment for a pure silver ring, and the chosan is essentially holding the ring as a mashkon [collateral]. Accordingly, when he gives the kallah this mashkon, he is being mekadesh her with the collateral that he has on others, which is a valid form of kiddushin. Additionally, there is no concern about the kallah being misled, as the witnesses confirm the ring’s value of at least a perutah in her presence, which demonstrates her intent to accept the kiddushin even if the ring is only worth a perutah.
For further discussion, see Teshuvos Keneh Bosem (1:120) and Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (4:292).
Does A Chosan Need to Hold the Wedding Ring in His Hand When the Birchas Erusin Is Being Recited?
By many mitzvos we find that one should hold the mitzvah item in his hand when reciting the berachah before fulfilling the mitzvah. For example: We find by havdolah, shofar, lulav and bris milah that one should hold the item being used for the mitzvah in his hand when reciting a berachah before performing the mitzvah. Similarly, by birchas hanhenin we find that one should hold the fruit in his hand when reciting the berachah. The question is, do we say the same thing by the mitzvah of kiddushin and require that the chosan holds the wedding ring in his hand when the mesader kiddushin recites the birchas erusin, or is it ok if he only picks it up afterwards?
Why We Hold the Fruit in Our Hands When Reciting a Berachah
The Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Berachos (206:4) rules, that when reciting a berachah on an item that one plans to eat or smell, one should hold it in his right hand when reciting the berachah. The Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 17) quotes the Levush who explains that the purpose of doing so is: כדי שיכוון לבו על מה שמברך “So that one can have better concentration on what he is making a berachah on”. This halachah is lechatchilah, bedieved however, if one recited a berachah and wasn’t holding the item it’s ok.
The Shulchan Aruch (167:3) also writes that when making a berachah on bread, one shouldn’t recite the berachah before he is holding the bread in his hand. By this halachah the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 22) offers a different reason and says: שאין מברכין על המצוות אלא סמוך לעשייתן – “as when we make berachos on mitzvos, we do it as close to the mitzvah as possible.”
It comes out that there are two reasons for holding the item: 1) So that one has better concentration when making the berachah; 2) So that the berachah is as close to the mitzvah as possible.
Holding the Mitzvah Item in One’s Hand When Reciting the Berachah
We also find in Hilchos Tzitzis (8 s.k. 2) that the Mishnah Berurah says that one should recite the berachah as close to the atifah [wrapping oneself with tallis] as possible, and one should hold the tallis in his hand when reciting the berachah and not leave it in the bag, as then the berachah will be made to far in advance (עובר דעובר).
We also find in Hilchos Tefillin (25:6) that one should only make the berachah on tefillin once the tefillin is already on the arm, just not yet tied. The Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 25) explains as before that point it is too early, and we try and make the berachah as close to the fulfilment of the mitzvah as possible. The Rema adds that the same thing is with the tefillin shel rosh, and the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 27) explains that one should place the tefillin shel rosh on his head and then recite a berachah, unlike those who recite the berachah whilst it is still in their hands.
We also find by wine and besomim during havdolah (296:6), that one should hold the mitzvah item in his hand when reciting a birchas hamitzvos. The same is with the shofar, lulav, and knife by bris milah.
By Birchas HaShvach There Is No Need
Interestingly, although we find by birchas hanhenin and birchas hamitzvos that one should hold the item in his hand when reciting the berachah, when it comes to birchas hashvach we find that there is no need.
The Prisha (298:2) writes that there is no need to hold the havdolah candle in one’s hand when reciting a berachah on it as it is not a birchas hanhenin but is rather a birchas hashvach. Based on the above, it would seemingly come out, that the question of whether the chosan should hold the ring in his hand or not during the birchas erusin would depend on the status of birchas erusin, if it would be a birchas hamitzvos then he should hold it, and if it is a birchas hashvach then he doesn’t need to.
Machlokes Rishonim If Birchas Erusin Is a Birchas HaMitzvos or Birchas HaShvach
There is a machlokes rishonim as to what the status of birchas erusin is. From the Rambam it is clear that it is a birchas hamitzvos. The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 3:23) rules:כל המקדש את האשה, בין ע"י עצמו בין ע"י שליח, צריך לברך קודם הקידושין הוא או שלוחו, ואח"כ מקדש, כדרך שמברכין קודם כל המצוות – “Anyone who is mekadesh a woman, whether he does it himself, or he does it via an agent, a berachah must be recited before the act of kiddushin, either he himself should recite it or his agent, and then the kiddushin should be performed, just like what we do by all mitzvos.”
The Ra’avad argues on the Rambam and says: We first perform the act kiddushin and then recite the berachah, as it requires the consent of another party, and we are worried that maybe the woman will refuse, and it will turn the berachah into a berachah levatolah. However, the Ra’avad just argues on when to recite the berachah, however, he agrees that it is a birchas hamitzvos.
However, from the Rosh in Kesubos (1:12) and Tosfos HaRosh (7a) it is clear that the birchas erusin is a birchas hashvach. The Rosh writes:וברכה זו נתקנה לתת שבח
