|
|
|
|
|
Forum
-> Judaism
-> Halachic Questions and Discussions
southernbubby
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 12:57 pm
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
Mauve
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 1:01 pm
this story makes no sense. she likely was in nidda a week after her wedding- the reasoning is not their need to procreate .
| |
|
Back to top |
0
6
|
Fox
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 1:05 pm
Interesting story!
My only quibble is with the editorial decision to write that the names of the families were omitted to spare them "humiliation."
Perfectly reasonable to omit the names in an interesting halachic case to maintain their privacy, but it sounds like the people involved did precisely what they should have: they asked a shaila; the talmidei chochomim whom they consulted reached a conclusions; and the families followed the p'sak.
It should never, ever be regarded (let alone reported!) as "humiliating" for a Jew facing an unusual or difficult halachic situation to ask a shaila, receive a p'sak, and follow it.
| |
|
Back to top |
2
20
|
SixOfWands
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 1:18 pm
amother wrote: | this story makes no sense. she likely was in nidda a week after her wedding- the reasoning is not their need to procreate . |
Where are you getting the need to procreate?
It was almost certainly unnecessary. Even if the ring wasn't the one they chose, he owned it, he gave it, she accepted it. Done deal. So it was a pants and suspenders thing because they already had a wedding, already did the deed, and didn't want to have to do the whole chuppa and sheva brachas over.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
5
|
33055
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 1:23 pm
SixOfWands wrote: | Where are you getting the need to procreate?
It was almost certainly unnecessary. Even if the ring wasn't the one they chose, he owned it, he gave it, she accepted it. Done deal. So it was a pants and suspenders thing because they already had a wedding, already did the deed, and didn't want to have to do the whole chuppa and sheva brachas over. |
Obviously, their rabbi thought it was necessary.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
10
|
shabbatiscoming
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 2:55 pm
amother wrote: | this story makes no sense. she likely was in nidda a week after her wedding- the reasoning is not their need to procreate . | Not all brides are nidda a week after they are married. And nowhere in the article does it say anything about procreating. What does that have to do with anything here?
| |
|
Back to top |
0
2
|
DrMom
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 3:10 pm
The "need to procreate" business comes directly from the article itself:
Quote: | In the end, they decided to rely on the ruling of Rabbi Moshe Isserles, “the Rama,” author of a gloss to the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Yosef Karo, discussing cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differ. The Rama ruled that when an urgent need arises it is possible to conduct a wedding on Shabbat – the urgent need being both the commandment to procreate and the families’ wish to avoid public humiliation as invited guests might be turned away. |
But all this started during sheva brachot, so it seems they did a "do-over" huppah after the big event with guests had already taken place.
So maybe that "need to procreate"was indeed the justification?
| |
|
Back to top |
0
3
|
Raisin
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 3:17 pm
they didnt want to cancel the sheva brachos so they did a small chuppa on shabbos morning with just the minimum required people present.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
3
|
Cmon be nice
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 3:20 pm
I cant open the article but I thought you cant get married on shabos?
| |
|
Back to top |
0
2
|
water_bear88
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 3:45 pm
SixOfWands wrote: | Where are you getting the need to procreate?
It was almost certainly unnecessary. Even if the ring wasn't the one they chose, he owned it, he gave it, she accepted it. Done deal. So it was a pants and suspenders thing because they already had a wedding, already did the deed, and didn't want to have to do the whole chuppa and sheva brachas over. |
There's a problem with a gold- or silver-plated ring, or with stones, because they bring into question the precise value of the ring- so it's slightly more complicated than the bolded. It's probably the fact that there's a safek that allowed them to have the chuppa on Shabbat, though.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
1
|
ibelongtosomebody
|
Mon, Nov 20 2017, 9:41 pm
SixOfWands wrote: |
It was almost certainly unnecessary. Even if the ring wasn't the one they chose, he owned it, he gave it, she accepted it. Done deal. So it was a pants and suspenders thing because they already had a wedding, already did the deed, and didn't want to have to do the whole chuppa and sheva brachas over. |
This story took place in Bnei Brak, home of some of the leading Poskim of our day. Doubtlessly, they were consulted. And lovely ladies on imamother, knowledgeable as they may be, can debate the 'necessity' and reasoning of their psak?
| |
|
Back to top |
1
8
|
salt
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 7:13 am
Cmon be nice wrote: | I cant open the article but I thought you cant get married on shabos? |
You're right. Hence the special psak, and the article. If they'd have gotten re-married on a Monday, that wouldn't make an interesting piece of news.
Quoting from the article:
"The Rama ruled that when an urgent need arises it is possible to conduct a wedding on Shabbat"
| |
|
Back to top |
0
1
|
miami85
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 7:26 am
amother wrote: | this story makes no sense. she likely was in nidda a week after her wedding- the reasoning is not their need to procreate . |
My understanding was more that they couldn't hold the sheva brachos due to lack of presence of chosson and kallah so they had to re-hold the wedding. My parents had to do something similar b/c of a problem with the eidim being distantly related.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
DrMom
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 7:41 am
Raisin wrote: | they didnt want to cancel the sheva brachos so they did a small chuppa on shabbos morning with just the minimum required people present. |
I am surprised that cancelling a Sheva Brachot party is justification for violating Shabbat.
I assume a more pressing issue was that the couple were already together, so it would have been humiliating to publicly announce that the first wedding was invalid.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
10
|
Iymnok
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 9:44 am
DrMom wrote: | I am surprised that cancelling a Sheva Brachot party is justification for violating Shabbat.
I assume a more pressing issue was that the couple were already together, so it would have been humiliating to publicly announce that the first wedding was invalid. |
I'm assuming that by sheva brachos, it means either under the chupa or bentching at the wedding.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
DrMom
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 10:19 am
Iymnok wrote: | I'm assuming that by sheva brachos, it means either under the chupa or bentching at the wedding. |
No, read the article.
| |
|
Back to top |
0
0
|
Amarante
|
Tue, Nov 21 2017, 2:27 pm
It’s a classic legal opinion and it makes perfect sense to me.
The delivery of the wrong Ring was a technical issue that may have rendered the marriage ceremony invalid. In classic contracts, there was an misconception and no meeting of the minds and therefore no binding contract.
This was a terrible result and obviously everyone wanted the couple to be properly married and not have to make an announcement that a “legal” technicality put a whole glitch in everything.
Therefore, the need for procreation was used as the justification for arriving at the result that should have occurred. That the couple was halachkally and legally married as soon as possible.
Isn’t this kind of legal reasoning used often to achieve a result that all parties agree is highly desirable. In this case, the wedding on Shabbos was not seen as worse than having a married couple’s happiness on what should be one of the happiest days of one’s life destroyed.
At least that’s how I see it. In legal terms, courts of equity were once completely separate from regular law courts because they strove to achieve results that were outside the strictest boundaries of the legal system and to do equity. Of course, there were qualifications such as the clean hands doctrine to seek equity.
At any rate, it’s exactly why my Bubbe used to say Jews were such excellent lawyers because they had centuries of Talmudic parsing in their gene pool :-)
Last edited by Amarante on Wed, Nov 22 2017, 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
Back to top |
0
5
|
miami85
|
Wed, Nov 22 2017, 12:53 am
Fox wrote: | Interesting story!
My only quibble is with the editorial decision to write that the names of the families were omitted to spare them "humiliation."
Perfectly reasonable to omit the names in an interesting halachic case to maintain their privacy, but it sounds like the people involved did precisely what they should have: they asked a shaila; the talmidei chochomim whom they consulted reached a conclusions; and the families followed the p'sak.
It should never, ever be regarded (let alone reported!) as "humiliating" for a Jew facing an unusual or difficult halachic situation to ask a shaila, receive a p'sak, and follow it. |
I suspect that the "humiliation" is a drastic word, perhaps lost in translation, but more like as much as they did the right thing by asking and following through with the shaila, its more like they don't need the whole world reminding them of their situation like ex. it was "Dovid Cohen"-- and someone meets them, "Oh! So you're Dovid Cohen who had that interesting marriage situation?tell me, did x,y, z happen?"
| |
|
Back to top |
0
2
|
Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Urgent - mistakenly baked chicken with the white plastic
|
2 |
Tue, Mar 26 2024, 4:06 pm |
|
|
URGENT! Senior driver drives too slow, got ticket for 36mph
|
20 |
Sun, Mar 24 2024, 10:53 am |
|
|
Urgent: BP urgent care open on Purim
|
0 |
Sun, Mar 24 2024, 10:47 am |
|
|
Looking for a frum couple to conduct a pesach sader
|
0 |
Wed, Mar 20 2024, 2:33 pm |
|
|
Married children
|
4 |
Tue, Mar 19 2024, 12:08 am |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
| |
|
|
|
|
|