My wife observed a young man in shul after davening acting very gentlemanly by handing his lulav to his kallah-to-be in the ladies' section so she could fulfill the mitzvah of netilas lulav. My wife immediately turned to me and raised a halachic red alert: did the kallah-to-be just become the kallah!? It's five months until Purim, but my wife remembered the Rama (O.C. 695) that says a man should not send mishloach manos to a single woman lest it be taken as an indication that she is mekudeshet to him. The same should apply to the mitzvah of lulav.
There is, however, a difference between lulav this year and mishloach manos. Mishloach manos is a gift which is meant to be kept; a lulav (on all days except the first) is merely borrowed for use to fulfill the mitzvah. Additionally, it is not that we suspect the mishloach manos of being used for kiddushin -- the suspicion (see M.B.) is that the kiddushin already took place and the mishloach manos are engagement gifts (sivlonos) after the fact. While mishloach manos are indeed meant as gifts, a lulav is not.
All that being said, the Halichos Beisa concurs with my wife and recommends that a man avoid giving his lulav to a single woman. Be careful who you lend your lulav to -- you may be getting more than you bargained for!
(For those who are already married, there is another halachic problem that comes up when we perform the mitzvah on the first day of Sukkos. On the first day only the mitzvah must be "lachem", meaning you must own, not borrow, the lulav and esrog. However, the halachic rule is "mah she'kansa isha kansa ba'alah" -- a woman has not independent ability to acquire property or goods; whatever she buys or takes possession of belongs to her husband. How then can she ever acquire her own lulav and esrog? Whether mah she'kansa isha... blocks kinyanim on a d'oraysa level and if it does how and whether we need to circumvent it is a discussion for another time, as it is a non-issue this year. See the notes at the end of the Bikurei Ya'akov.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your blog looks wonderful as it was quite information. enjoyed it very much.
ReplyDeleteOf course the rule of "mah she'kansa..." is not an ironclad rule, but one that exists only at the social convenience of the wife -- she accepts it in exchange for the husband's support. She can, at will, negate the arrangement and, I'm fairly certain, can come to an agreement with her husband on exceptions to the situation.
ReplyDeleteGiven that, can it not be argued that if the husband gives a gift to his wife (whether it be the lulav, a piece of jewelery, or anything else) that he is obviously renouncing all rights to it (otherwise why is he giving her a gift to begin with)?
The Wolf
yes, it is more of an issue if the wife borrows someone else's lulav (e.g. she picks up the communally owned lulav of the shul).
ReplyDeleteThat's an even easier problem to solve. You can give a gift to her on condition that it not enter her husband's possession and such a condition is valid.
ReplyDeleteThe Wolf
Not so simple... even if the wife is koneh the keren, the husband retains the right of achilas peiros -- would you call something she owns but which only her husband can benefit from hers or his? Does it meet the requirement of "lachem"? The B.Y. (567:5) is bothered by this. You can still work out a tnai syntax to avoid the issue, but its a step beyond the usual "ain l'ba'aleich reshus bo".
ReplyDeleteThe Halichos Beias suggests lending a married woman a lulav with the girsa that is conditional on her husband not having possession of it. But he still doesn't like that as a solution and prefers a woman to only use her husband's. He also suggests there is a lack of tznius (on top of the kinyan/kedushin problem) in a man lending his lulav to anyone other than a wife, mother, sister, daughter.
ReplyDeletei would guess that the first comment is spam, in an effort to raise a google ranking, and that you might want to delete it.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
just a question:
ReplyDeletewhen dating, did you take your date to a restaurant and pay for the meal at the end? would you be choshesh that you were mekadesh any of those women?
if not, what is the reason for being worried in an instance involving a mitzva and not there? because one has one's halachic hat on? or because there is a real distinction?
kol tuv,
josh
I don't understand... the chashash sivlonos is when you give a gift to the kallah. Paying for a meal is just being mesalek a chov after the fact.
ReplyDeleteWhy not ask a more basic question -- don't people give gifts to their kallah-to-be? The answer to all of these questions is that b'zman hazeh we are not choshesh for sivlonos, see E.H. 45. The din by purim must be a unique chumra perhaps because of the public nature of mishloach manos.
"a lulav (on all days except the first) is merely borrowed for use to fulfill the mitzvah."
ReplyDeleteActually, it is supposed to be a matanah al menas le hachzir.
"Not so simple... even if the wife is koneh the keren, the husband retains the right of achilas peiros -- would you call something she owns but which only her husband can benefit from hers or his? Does it meet the requirement of "lachem"?"
Well that depends on whether kinyan peiros is ke kinyan ha guf dami.
But in any case, where there is a communal set of daled minim, the understanding is that each person is koneh it for a limited time al menas le hachzir. Furthermore, during Sukkos the daled minim are huktzeh lemitzvaso (mitzvasam?) So for both reasons there are no "peiros" -- the only use one can make of it is to fulfill the mitzvah, which is not a hanaah (mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu). So the baal has no kinyan peiros -- there is nothing to be koneh. All one gets is a momentary kinyan for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvah.
Not correct - Please see the Bikurei Ya'akov (657:5). Firstly, whether kinyan peiros=kinyan haguf is not the issue. Even if the kinyan on the keren=kinyan haguf, the fact remains that someone else has usage rights may diminish lachem. Huktzah l'mitzvasam has nothing to do with anything -- whether the lulav can actually be used for another purpose has no bearing on the question of theoretical ownership. Saying "one can make use of it for the mitzvah" does not answer the question of why this should be true -- how can one make use of it if a husband's overriding rights always impinge on lachem? All this is in the B.Y. and also in his hosafos at the end of the sefer.
ReplyDelete>>>Actually, it is supposed to be a matanah al menas le hachzir.
ReplyDeleteI think I got it right -- you only need matanah am"l on the first day where there is a requirement of "lachem". On all other days a borrowed lulav is OK. "Mitoch she'yotzei b'shaul...." (Sukkos 30)
So, even though I buy a lulav/esrog set for my wife every year, she can't use it the first day?
ReplyDeleteSee above -- for your own wife it is OK because you are buying it specifically for her and relinquishing your rights. The question is if she were to buy a lulav without your knowledge, would that be OK.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete