tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post2326094599859047347..comments2024-03-20T18:38:31.327-05:00Comments on Havolim: Breaking the Plate at the Tna'im. A Trivial Discussion of a Little MinhagEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-6615675905801861792010-04-26T14:17:14.963-05:002010-04-26T14:17:14.963-05:00haltheman, I don't know if that stands for Hal...haltheman, I don't know if that stands for Hal the Man, nor whether you are male or female. Whatever you are, tell me, if the Pope would say "unfortunately, on Sundays we have to deal with Christians," would you start tapping away at the keyboard to accuse him of prejudice? <br />I would suggest that my words be judged in the context of one or two of my hundreds of posts before characterizing them as being "repulsive, ignorant and anti-Torah" <br />Presuming that you are a normal, functioning member of society, I attribute the ill-considered and humorless remark to be an artifact that bespeaks the habit of typing away before careful thought that the internet has encouraged.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-77953707016372326102010-04-26T13:42:52.269-05:002010-04-26T13:42:52.269-05:00Barzilai,
"Like it or not, weddings are a tim...Barzilai,<br />"Like it or not, weddings are a time that we have to 'deal' with women"? what does that make you? Don't you know that Bnei Yisroel would never have left Mitzrayim if it were not for "nashim tzitkoniyot"? Such a comment is repulsive, ignorant and anti-Torah.halthemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-30779633717926286292009-11-06T09:06:07.852-06:002009-11-06T09:06:07.852-06:00I don't like Rabbi Reisman's pshat; a man ...I don't like Rabbi Reisman's pshat; a man can obligate himself numerous times, and we don't investigate whether his assets have prior liens, or whether he has assets at all. Furthermore, I would say that his assumption that Tna'im obligations trump kesuva obligations is incorrect; they wouldn't if the husband acted unilaterally, and despite the wife's participation, her rights are not abrogated unless she signs them away explicitly.<br /><br />You're right that the tna'im obligates the parents, but it obligates the chasan and kallah even more. The financial liability, perhaps, is specific to the parents. But how can parents accept a mi shepara, the curse against the party that reneges, if the parents can't make the decision? Ultimately, it's the C & K that make the decision whether to go through with the wedding; therefore, the agreement that the party that breaches will suffer the curse of mi shepara has to be made with the agreement of the principals. Therefore, it makes sense for either the kallah or members of her entourage, to participate, to ensure her awareness, approval, and agreement. Like it or not, weddings are a time that we have to deal with women.<br /><br />But I agree that before feminist ideologists began to denigrate Chazal, women's participation in public events was assessed on exclusively tznius/kol kevuda issues, but otherwise considered innocuous, and that it's a nice way to be marbeh simcha for both the men and the women.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955681.post-63953088150894176412009-11-06T08:28:21.813-06:002009-11-06T08:28:21.813-06:00I thought the financial obligation entailed by bre...I thought the financial obligation entailed by breaking the tanaim contract is actually incumbent on the father of the bride rather than the bride herself. That assumption underlies Rabbi Reisman's suggested reason in his book Pathways to the Prophets. He concedes that he could not find a source for the minhag of mothers, specifically, breaking the plate. He offers a possible explanation as follows: the tanaim undertake a financial obligation. As the fathers of the chasson and kallah each have a prior financial obligation to their wives' kesubos, the wives participation indicates their willingness to allow this new financial agreement. After I looked it up, I put this into the comments on my post at http://kallahmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/10/mothers-active-role-in-jewish-weddings.html<br /><br />Speaking of the kesubah, the bride is not present, nor is her mother, necessarily, when it is drawn up. The witnesses serve as her agents, in effect, though she never appointed them. When I asked the esteemed DC about this, he said the principle of mezakin leadam shelo befanav would apply there. Anyway, why would the bride's mother represent her rather than her father for the tanaim? I really think it was just a matter of allowing women an active part with an attitude of "why not, if there is no halachic reason not to?" They weren't worried about havig to counter any feminist impulses.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.com