Preface-
• Messechet Kiddushin & Ketubot say that Nesuin is the second stage of marriage, and that is brought about by either Chupah, covering the veil, Yichud, or going home together - but it doesn't say 'what it is'.
• Messechet Ketubot says that the man's obligation in Nesuin is food, clothing, and relations - is this a takanah d'rebonim, or is this simply a 'financial arrangement' between the man and the woman?
• Perhaps Nesuin is an agreement between the man and woman that they will live together, and that the man - unless other arrangements are made - is responsible to clothe and feed the woman. They are 'setting up house together, and have physical relations'.
• The symbolism of 'chupah' is that the man is taking the woman into 'his reshus', thereby accepting 'achrayis' for her physical needs. It is similar to a person on Shabbos bringing an object from a Reshus Harabim to his Reshus Hayachud.
Here are some related questions:
1. If a Jewish man and woman want to 'skip' Erusin, and go directly to Nesuin, is it 'chal'? Though it might be a 'bitul asay' (according to the Rambam) or a Lav according to others, do the man and woman have an arrangement that could be called 'Nesuin'?
2. When Rabbi Moshe Feinstein said that a Reform wedding is not Erusin, would he say that when they live together with such a 'setting up house' arrangement, is this Nesuin?
3. When a non-Jewish man and non-Jewish woman set up house together, can that be called Nesuin?
4. If a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man have such an arrangement, can this be called Nesuin,
5. In any or all of the previous cases, and if the man dies, does the woman become an Almanah?
This came up when I was learning Yevomos 68b/69a. Rebbe Yishmael says how do we know that when a non-Jew lives with a Bas Kohen, this possuls her from eating Terumah. The possuk says that when she comes back as an Gerushah or an Almanah, and she has no children, she can go back to eating Terumah in her father's house. The Limud is that a goy is not in the realm of creating a Gerushah or Almanah.
Of course that's true for Gerushin, because that's the flip side of Erusin.
But perhaps a goy is in the realm of Nesuin and leaving her as an Almana, and then Rebbe Yishmael's limud doesn't work.
Akiva Lane, Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel
1) What exactly do you mean by saying that the couple "skips" Erusin? If we say that Nisu'in is the Chupah, does that mean they stand under the Chupah but he does not put the ring on her finger? (That act being considered as doing Kidushin through giving money, as, generally in the Gemara, Kidushin and Erusin are considered the same thing.)
2) Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l wrote in Igros Moshe (EH 1:74) in the name of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin zt'l that if a man and woman underwent a civil marriage and then lived together, this is considered as Kidushin effected through relations, as the first Mishnah in Kidushin 2a states that Bi'ah is one of the three ways of achieving marriage.
However, Rav Feinstein disagreed with this. He maintained that even though the Gemara in Yevamos 107a states that we assume a person does not do an act of Bi'ah unless he intends it to be a Bi'ah for the sake of marriage, this does not apply to people who live together without Kidushin. Rav Feinstein writes that in such a case, if the woman wants to marry someone else, then if it is possible for her to receive a Get then she should do so in order to satisfy the opinion of Rav Henkin, but if it is not possible to obtain a Get from the first man (e.g., because we do not know where he is), it is possible to permit her to marry without a Get because we say she was never married.
3) The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 1:1) writes, "Before the Torah was given, if a man met a woman and he and she wanted 'li'Sa,' then he could take her into his house; they would have relations and she would become his wife." (The Rambam continues and says that when the Torah was given, Yisrael were commanded that if a man wanted to marry a woman, he must first do a Kinyan in front of witnesses and after this she becomes his wife.
The root of the word "li'Sa" is from "Nisu'in," so this suggests that Nisu'in is applicable with a non-Jewish man and woman.
4)
a) The Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 12:1) writes: "If a Jewish woman has relations with a non-Jewish man in the way of Ishus, she is liable to Malkus according to the Torah, as is stated, 'You shall not marry them' (Devarim 7:3)."
b) The Bach (on the Tur, EH 16:3, DH uM'S Derech) writes that when the Rambam writes "in the way of Ishus" he means through Nisu'in, because Nisu'in applies for a Kuti. Even though Kidushin does not apply to Kutim, Ishus and Nisu'in do apply to them. When the Torah states, "You shall not marry them," it means through Ishus and Nisu'in.
c) The Shulchan Aruch (EH 16:1) rules according to the Rambam that there is a Torah prohibition against a Jewish woman setting up home with a non-Jewish man. This is considered Ishus.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rav Bloom,
Thank you for your research.
Two questions at this point:
1. The Mishnah at the top of Yevamos 69a talks about a situation where a Jewish woman 'nisase' a non-Jew.
Tosfos at the top says this term doesn't really apply to this situation. Is the Bach you quote go against this Tosfos?
2. On the bottom of 68b and top of 69a, Rav Yishmael says that the word Almanah couldn't apply to a Jewish woman
and a non-Jewish man. If there is Ishus, why not Almanas?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Akiva
1) Akiva, I think you are referring to the Mishnah in Yevamos 69b, and Tosfos there (DH v'Nises), who states that Nisu'in is not applicable with a Shifchah.
However, a Shifchah is different from a regular Nochri. The Gemara (Yevamos 62a) teaches that an "Eved" does not possess "Chayis" (lineage), and similarly Nisu'in does not apply for an Eved. The same applies for a Shifchah. See Tosfos to Yevamos 62a, DH ha'Kol, who writes that someone who is half-free cannot do Nisu'in with a Shifchah because of the half-free part. The Bach is not referring to an Eved or Shifchah, but rather to an ordinary Nochri.
2) In a separate reply I have suggested that Almanus does not apply to a non-Jewish man because the Gemara (Kesuvos 10b) states that the word "Almanah" means "she receives a Maneh" for her Kesubah, which is applicble only for Yisrael.
Additional support for the Bach:
The Aruch la'Ner (on Tosfos 69b, DH v'Nises) cites the Gemara in Sukah 56b which tells us the tragic story of Miryam bas Bilga who abandoned the Jewish faith and went and "Nises" to a Greek officer. This seems to be a good source for the Bach, that Nisu'in applies when a Jewish woman sets up house with a non-Jew.
Akiva, thank you for your very good questions.
Dovid Bloom