Q Usually a man gives his fiancée a nice, expensive engagement ring well before their wedding. I understand that it has no religious significance. The wedding band is religiously required to be standardized (gold, no stones, etc.). Religiously, is there any problem with giving the eventual wedding band as an engagement ring and using it as a wedding band in the ceremony and waiting until after the wedding to buy the nicer, more expensive ring with stones? A First of all, mazal tov. Allow us to
give some halachic advice, not a halachic ruling. (Of course, there is
also the important issue of how your fiancée will feel about not getting
the nicer ring right away, but since we do not know you and that is not
our field, we'll leave that out.) Let us deal with two surmountable
halachic issues that your suggestions would cause. One could also raise questions about how it looks that a single woman is walking around with a classic wedding band, which is usually a sign of marriage, not engagement. This situation touches on a halachic topic known as sivlonot. The details are both complicated and fluid, depending on local practice (see Kiddushin 50b and Even Haezer 45), but this is the basic idea. In some of the situations that a fiancé gives his fiancée gifts, we need to be concerned that she is already married to him. This can be for one or both of the following reasons. The giving of the gifts can serve as kiddushin (initial stage of the marriage process) which does not have to be with a ring or under a chupa to take effect. It can, alternatively, be a sign that at some time in the past, he must have done kiddushin (or else he wouldn't have given her those presents). Based on a variety of factors, this fear basically doesn't apply in modern-day society (as reported already many hundreds of years ago- see Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 45:2). However, one could raise the issue that, in our days and places, a certain type of ring, which we call a wedding band, is indeed a very strong sign of marriage, and one could claim that the almost forgotten laws of sivlonot would apply to such a case. So again, it may be "asking for trouble" for an engaged woman to receive from her fiancé that which is normally a sign of her being married. In truth, we feel that both issues are
surmountable, and it is the job of a rabbi to solve problems. However, it
is also the job of rabbis to have things run smoothly so that problems are
kept to a minimum and there are not grounds for aspersions to be cast,
even incorrectly. Everyone rightfully prefers that their wedding process
be valid without any questions existing. So, unless there is some type of
unusually pressing situation that we are not aware of, we strongly suggest
that you should not give a wedding band until the wedding. In case of
need, you can discuss the matter with your officiating rabbi, who can
decide what to do based on the circumstances. (Allow us a practical
suggestion. If you don't want to get an expensive "engagement" ring now,
you should be able to give another less expensive piece of jewelry other
than a wedding band). As he was eating, the visitor heard
someone shuffling painfully into the sukkah. When he looked up, he sawR’
Chaim Ozer. The man protested thatR’ Chaim Ozer should not had troubled
himself in his condition. R’ Chaim Ozer replied, “It’s true that I’m
exempt from being in the sukkah, but I still have the obligation of
Hachnasat Orchim — being hospitable to one’s guests. It’s not very
hospitable to have one’s guests eat alone. Sota, a chapter dealing with suspicion, is calling upon us to value the con- trasting value: loyalty and fealty. The Sota ordeal plays a role similar to the role of the list of penalties proscribed in the Torah for various transgressions. The purpose is to demonstrate the seriousness and magnitude of acts that affect not only the individual, but the family, society and nation as a whole. Nazir, asceticism in pursuit of
sanctity, is highlighted in order to project the idea of man's ownership
and responsi- bility of his own actions. It is man, on his own initiative,
who takes a step in order to raise his spiritual level. National success is guaranteed when the individual assumes responsibility for his moral behavior and when society does not ignore the deterioration of morals within the family unit. And so, it is very appropriate that after highlighting Sota, society's response to suspicion, and Nazir, the individual obligation of moral responsibility, the Torah then provides us with the blessing for the Nation: V'YISHM'RECHA - security, VICHUNEKA - educational and moral enhancement, and SHALOM - peace. The Almighty provides us with security
and peace when we take responsibility as individuals and as society for
our own ethical and moral behavior. Moral initiative and consistency are
the building blocks of the Jewish Nation and its success. Israel today, in
search of security and peace, is able to rely on the very clear
prescription set out in Parshat Naso. Our prayers in Israel are
consistently for V'YASEIM L'CHA SHALOM. Perhaps Ruth's earnest and sincere efforts to imbibe the Jewish way of life in the face of terrible adversity (in particular, her Moabite origins) sets the tone by which, on Shavu'ot, we should relive our acceptance of the Torah, as it were. In passing, we might thus address the question of our proper attitude towards the Ger, the proselyte to Judaism. Rav Zeira (Midrash Rabba, Ruth) teaches
that the central theme of the Megila is the reward earned for acts of
Chessed, good deeds that go beyond the call of duty. Ruth, it seems,
ignites the 700-year dormant mida of Chessed inherited through Lot from
Avraham (Sefer Hatoda'ah). Thus, despite her questionable background, her
modest and caring attitude towards her destitute mother- in-law Naomi
inspires every Jewish heart. What a beautiful lesson to learn! Chag Samei’ach & Shabbat Shalom, [The Shavuot - Parshat Naso Homepage]
|
