How does a machmir shomer negia man present an engangement ring to his bashert? (No, it's not a trick question)

still in the box...mazal tov to who ever....

Nechama,
I wish I were giving away a ring. This was an academic question. Thanks anyway.

I'm curious. What is a machmir shomer negia? Isn't someone either shomer negia or not?

Btw, as Nechama S said, in the box, give it to her etc. He just wouldn't put the ring on her finger.

Not all people interpret shomer negia the same way that's why I'm saying machmir. Some say you can't touch anyone, some say family is okay and others still differenet opinions.

First of all, make sure you hand over the ring in front of noone....no witness....because if there was witness, then it might be a marriage!

Just hand it over without touching her.... - dont put it on her finger because there is a high risk of touching her.

Keep well

By presenting it to her in it's case and putting it in front of her.

What is the difference between presenting to her in the case and presenting to her as a ring?

Thanks

How machmir is this lucky man? If he's a Chasid, then he wouldn't hand it over even in the box. He'd put it down as Rav Chaim suggested.

Naftali,
You say I have to do this in secret, just in case it could effect a marriage? Wouldn't we have a yichud problem in secret? In fact, wouldn't violation of yichud itself effect marriage?

Rav Chaim, April
Should I place it on the table top in its box, open or closed? Does she have to see what I'm giving her before she accepts.

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
Naftali,
You say I have to do this in secret, just in case it could effect a marriage? Wouldn't we have a yichud problem in secret? In fact, wouldn't violation of yichud itself effect marriage?

It could be where there are other women and only one man (you need 2 male witnesses for Kiddushin) or just leave the door open so that anyone could come in at any time.

I *think* putting the ring down in front of the lucky recipient while still in the box is just a common sense tactic- if the ring were out of the box, it might roll away- and leave the poor man perhaps a few thousand dollars cheaper...

I wonder why such a big Chumrah is needed. Since no Lushon of Kiddushin is mentioned. It's known that people give engagement rings not for Kiddushin, so why would this even create even a question on it?

P.s. Moshe,we're all rooting for you.

Rav Chaim,
Like you, I hadn't considered the Lushon Kiddushin to be implied. But being that he has raised the issue, could the presence of two male witnesses effect a marriage in this case. After all you are giving her something of value, "with intent". This is not a toaster oven.

"With intent" to do what. What we call engagement is not the betrothal - "Eirusin" - of the Talmud and which is effected nowadays under the Chuppa with the placing of the ring on the Kalla's finger and the Chosson saying "Harei At MeKudeshes Li etc."

I'd say that our engagement is more an expression of intent than anything binding.

Yisroel,
"With intent" to marry. You answer your own question in your last sentence. The issue I'm raising is that fundamental to halacha you can marry by 1. giving a gift of significant value, 2. having coitus, 3. establishing a contract. In this situation I am giving a ring of value. The act of engagement itslef, as you noted, is an expression of intent. The only thing that stops us from doing things this way is the rabbonim established protocols to make it standard and more manageable. However, if the parties involved decide to make it "binding" effectively creating "Eirusin" can anyone object to it?

my husband proposed to me infornt of our families and a restaurant full of people (I wont go into how i got the ring) but there were witnesses, was i considered "married" before my chupah actually took place?

Nechama,
No, you were not married because you did not intend to be married at that time. However, if your intent was to be married at that moment, a halachic case could be made to support such.
In the olden days a process that used to take one whole year only take minutes today. My argument was this; if the two parties decided to assume the old paradigm, would there be any grounds to object? The old paradigm still comports with halacha.

In the olden days, you were not considered completely married until chupa was completed, even though the minimal requirement for marriage had been met. However, you did need a get to assuage betrothal.

B"H
Moshe & Nachama,

"In the olden days a process that used to take one whole year only take minutes today."

The Gemara of Ketuvoth says that after a man betroths his bride, he was given up to a year's time to effect the marriage by bringing her to the "chuppah." The "chuppah" is really what makes the marriage, although the betrothals make the woman forbidden unto all others. If a man delayed beyond a year's time before bringing his betrothed spouse to the "chuppah," it is incumbent upon him thenceforth to provide for his bride's upkeep, although she remains in the house of her father.
Today, as you correctly pointed out, betrothals are made on the night of the wedding, and there is no longer any delay between the act of betrothal and the act of marriage itself.

It should be noted here that the word "chuppah" has changed in meaning over the years. Today, it is generally understood to mean "canopy." But Rabbi Yitzhaq Ratzaby of Benei Barak says that "chuppah" has the equivalence of the room wherein the bridegroom and his bride are left alone together ("cheder yichud") for about an hour or an hour and a half after the betrothals. Their being left alone together under the same roof makes them "officially" man and wife, or consummates the marriage. "Chuppah" literally means "covering."

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham