Introduction to Kesuba - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* What happens if the Kesuba is Misplaced? */

2025-01-05T15:57:42Z

What happens if the Kesuba is Misplaced?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 5 January 2025
Line 128:		Line 128:
	==What happens if the Kesuba is Misplaced?==		==What happens if the Kesuba is Misplaced?==

	#If a couple happens to misplace their Kesuba (and has no idea where it could be) <ref>Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Wosner pasken that if the couple knows it is in the house, but unsure where in the house it is located, it is not considered halachically lost. </ref>, it is prohibited for them to live together until another one (a Kesuba D'irkasa) is completed and signed.		#If a couple happens to misplace their Kesuba (and has no idea where it could be),<ref>Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Wosner pasken that if the couple knows it is in the house, but unsure where in the house it is located, it is not considered halachically lost. </ref> it is prohibited for them to live together until another one (a Kesuba D'irkasa) is completed and signed.

	==Further Reading==		==Further Reading==

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:57:18Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 5 January 2025
Line 98:		Line 98:
	=== How high should the chatan raise the kli ===		=== How high should the chatan raise the kli ===
	# The ''chatan'' should raise up the ''kli'' 3 [[Tefachim\|''tefachim'']].<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref>		# The ''chatan'' should raise up the ''kli'' 3 [[Tefachim\|''tefachim'']].<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref>
	# If he's doing a ''chalipin'' above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 ''tefachim'' from the ground, even if it is within 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 ''tefachim'' above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>		# If he's doing a ''chalipin'' above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 ''tefachim'' from the ground, even if it is within 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the ''kli'' 3 ''tefachim'' above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>
	# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>		# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>
	# For a handkerchief it is sufficient for the chatan to take grasp of 3x3 ''[[etzbaot]]'' of the handkerchief, even if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is still holding onto the other part of the handkerchief.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4</ref> It is simpler for the ''mesader kiddushin'' to just give the entire handkerchief to the chatan and not hold onto part of it, but if he does it is still effective.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16]) </ref> If someone does a ''kinyan chalipin'' with a ballpoint pen the ''chatan'' must hold the entire pen and it is ineffective if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is holding one part of it and the chatan the other half.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 10]) </ref>		# For a handkerchief it is sufficient for the ''chatan'' to take grasp of 3x3 ''[[etzbaot]]'' of the handkerchief, even if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is still holding onto the other part of the handkerchief.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4</ref> It is simpler for the ''mesader kiddushin'' to just give the entire handkerchief to the chatan and not hold onto part of it, but if he does it is still effective.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16]) </ref> If someone does a ''kinyan chalipin'' with a ballpoint pen the ''chatan'' must hold the entire pen and it is ineffective if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is holding one part of it and the ''chatan'' the other half.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 10]) </ref>

	=== In whose presence ===		=== In whose presence ===
Line 111:		Line 111:

	=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 ''tefachim'', irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref> Other non-cloth utensils do not have this requirement to be 3x3 ''etzbaot''.		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 ''tefachim'', irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli (Rambam Hilchot Kelim 22:1). However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref> Other non-cloth utensils do not have this requirement to be 3x3 ''etzbaot''.
	# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# Some ''gedolim'' have a practice to use a pen (which isn't broken) for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin. Sh"t Baruch Omer CM 161 agrees that pen is fine for a kinyan chalipin. Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano (Mishpat Hamechira p. 614) writes that his teacher, Rav Asher Weiss, usually does kinyan chalipin with a pen. He quotes that one gadol thought that a pen may not be used for chalipin since it runs out of ink at some point and is similar to fruit which become depleted. Rav Ovadia Toledano rejects this logic since many kelim become depleted after being used many times but are still considered a kli. </ref>		# Some ''gedolim'' have a practice to use a pen (which isn't broken) for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin. Sh"t Baruch Omer CM 161 agrees that pen is fine for a kinyan chalipin. Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano (Mishpat Hamechira p. 614) writes that his teacher, Rav Asher Weiss, usually does kinyan chalipin with a pen. He quotes that one gadol thought that a pen may not be used for chalipin since it runs out of ink at some point and is similar to fruit which become depleted. Rav Ovadia Toledano rejects this logic since many kelim become depleted after being used many times but are still considered a kli. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:55:53Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 5 January 2025
Line 111:		Line 111:

	=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 ''tefachim'', irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref> Other non-cloth utensils do not have this requirement to be 3x3 ''etzbaot''.
	# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# Some ''gedolim'' have a practice to use a pen (which isn't broken) for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin. Sh"t Baruch Omer CM 161 agrees that pen is fine for a kinyan chalipin. Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano (Mishpat Hamechira p. 614) writes that his teacher, Rav Asher Weiss, usually does kinyan chalipin with a pen. He quotes that one gadol thought that a pen may not be used for chalipin since it runs out of ink at some point and is similar to fruit which become depleted. Rav Ovadia Toledano rejects this logic since many kelim become depleted after being used many times but are still considered a kli. </ref>		# Some ''gedolim'' have a practice to use a pen (which isn't broken) for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin. Sh"t Baruch Omer CM 161 agrees that pen is fine for a kinyan chalipin. Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano (Mishpat Hamechira p. 614) writes that his teacher, Rav Asher Weiss, usually does kinyan chalipin with a pen. He quotes that one gadol thought that a pen may not be used for chalipin since it runs out of ink at some point and is similar to fruit which become depleted. Rav Ovadia Toledano rejects this logic since many kelim become depleted after being used many times but are still considered a kli. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Ownership of the kli for chalipin */

2025-01-05T15:51:48Z

Ownership of the kli for chalipin

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 5 January 2025
Line 113:		Line 113:
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref>
	# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# Some ~~people~~ have a practice to use a pen ~~that works~~ for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin.</ref>		# Some ''gedolim'' have a practice to use a pen (which isn't broken) for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin. Sh"t Baruch Omer CM 161 agrees that pen is fine for a kinyan chalipin. Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano (Mishpat Hamechira p. 614) writes that his teacher, Rav Asher Weiss, usually does kinyan chalipin with a pen. He quotes that one gadol thought that a pen may not be used for chalipin since it runs out of ink at some point and is similar to fruit which become depleted. Rav Ovadia Toledano rejects this logic since many kelim become depleted after being used many times but are still considered a kli. </ref>
	# A ''kli'' can be used for ''chalipin'' even though it isn't even worth a ''[[prutah]]''.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>		# A ''kli'' can be used for ''chalipin'' even though it isn't even worth a ''[[prutah]]''.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>
	# A disposable ''kli'' could technically be used for a ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>		# A disposable ''kli'' could technically be used for a ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Ownership of the kli for chalipin */

2025-01-05T15:45:03Z

Ownership of the kli for chalipin

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 5 January 2025
Line 92:		Line 92:
	==Making the Kinyan==		==Making the Kinyan==

	# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# The minhag is to make a ''kinyan chalipin'' for the obligations in a ''kesubah''.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
	# This is done by having one of the witnesses<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77 writes that the minhag is to have one of the witnesses make the kinyan.</ref> or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used, such as a ~~hankerchief~~, to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# This is done by having one of the witnesses<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77 writes that the minhag is to have one of the witnesses make the kinyan.</ref> or someone else who is acting on behalf of the ''kallah'', such as the ''mesader kiddushin'', give a ''kli'' (utensil) that is fit to be used, such as a handkerchiefs, to the ''chatan'' who then raises it up. This act causes the ''chatan'' to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the ''kesuba''.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
	# The chatan should be aware that his act of chalipin obligates him in his obligations of the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 80</ref>		# The ''chatan'' should be aware that his act of ''chalipin'' obligates him in his obligations of the ''kesubah''.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 80</ref>

	=== How high should the chatan raise the kli ===		=== How high should the chatan raise the kli ===
	# The chatan should raise up the kli 3 tefachim.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref>		# The ''chatan'' should raise up the ''kli'' 3 [[Tefachim\|''tefachim'']].<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref>
	# If he's doing a chalipin above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 tefachim above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 tefachim from the ground, even if it is within 3 tefachim of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 tefachim above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>		# If he's doing a ''chalipin'' above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 ''tefachim'' from the ground, even if it is within 3 ''[[tefachim]]'' of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 ''tefachim'' above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>
	# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>		# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>
			# For a handkerchief it is sufficient for the chatan to take grasp of 3x3 ''[[etzbaot]]'' of the handkerchief, even if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is still holding onto the other part of the handkerchief.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4</ref> It is simpler for the ''mesader kiddushin'' to just give the entire handkerchief to the chatan and not hold onto part of it, but if he does it is still effective.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16]) </ref> If someone does a ''kinyan chalipin'' with a ballpoint pen the ''chatan'' must hold the entire pen and it is ineffective if the ''mesader kiddushin'' is holding one part of it and the chatan the other half.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 10]) </ref>

	=== In whose presence ===		=== In whose presence ===
	# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> and does not need to be done with the kallah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78. This is different from the tenayim which requiring kinyanim to be done both with the chatan as well as with the kallah, or their representatives. The reason is that in tenayim both sides have mutual obligations, as opposed to a ketubah, which is really an obligation upon the chatan. </ref>		# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the ''kallah''<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> and does not need to be done with the kallah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78. This is different from the tenayim which requiring kinyanim to be done both with the chatan as well as with the kallah, or their representatives. The reason is that in tenayim both sides have mutual obligations, as opposed to a ketubah, which is really an obligation upon the chatan. </ref>
	# The kinyan must be done in the presence of the edim who sign the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78</ref>		# The kinyan must be done in the presence of the ''edim'' who sign the ''kesubah''.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78</ref>

	=== Ownership of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Ownership of the kli for ''chalipin'' ===
	# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> It is best not for the one doing the kinyan chalipin to own the kli.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78 writes that it is advisable not to get involved with the dispute surrounding a borrowed kli for the chalipin.</ref>		# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the ''kinyan'' on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the ''mesader kiddushin'' borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> It is best not for the one doing the ''kinyan chalipin'' to own the kli.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78 writes that it is advisable not to get involved with the dispute surrounding a borrowed kli for the chalipin.</ref>
	# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished, the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10), Chomat Mishpat p. 78. Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>		# Once the kli used for ''chalipin'' is transferred the transaction is finished, the chatan should return the kli to the ''mesader kiddushin''.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10), Chomat Mishpat p. 78. Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>

	=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for ''kinyan chalipin'', but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 ''[[etzbaot]]''. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a ''chalipin'' is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials. Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 4-12]) explains the view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. He adds that many rabbonim did not want to follow the lenient view of Rav Yitzchak Elchanon to allow a kinyan chalipin with 3x3 etzbaot of a cloth that wasn't wool or linen, so they used the corner of their wool jacket (''kapota''). </ref>
	# A kli can be used for chalipin even though it isn't even worth a prutah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>		# For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for ''chalipin'' since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some ''poskim'' allow using a ''gartel'' for a ''kinyan'' even though it is thinner than 3x3 ''etzbaot''.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# A disposable kli could technically be used for a kinyan chalipin.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>		# Some people have a practice to use a pen that works for the ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Rav Schachter ([https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecturedata/783685/Shiur-#26Bava-Metzia%D7%99%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95,-%D7%97%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99 Bava Metsia Shiur 26 min 16-7]) mentions that he saw that the practice in the bet din of Tel Aviv was to use a pen for the kinyan chalipin.</ref>
	# A kli that is forbidden to benefit from may not be used for chalipin.<ref>Bava Metsia 47b, Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 188)</ref>		# A ''kli'' can be used for ''chalipin'' even though it isn't even worth a ''[[prutah]]''.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>
	# Fruit cannot be used for the chalipin.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Teshuva (Kinyanim 7:5), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 195)</ref>		# A disposable ''kli'' could technically be used for a ''kinyan chalipin''.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>
	# There is a major dispute if an animal can be used for chalipin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:2 writes that it is acceptable to use an animal for chalipin as it is similar to a kli, however, Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 195) notes that Shulchan Aruch seems to disagree and treats an animal like fruit. Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:5) also writes that animals are not acceptable but some allow using them for chalipin.</ref>		# A kli that is forbidden to benefit from may not be used for ''chalipin''.<ref>Bava Metsia 47b, Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 188)</ref>
	# A coin cannot be used for chalipin.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:6), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 197)</ref> A coin that was disqualified as currency can be used for chalipin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:2 based on Tur, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:6)</ref> Some poskim do not allow using a coin even if it isn't currency.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 199) based on Rambam</ref>		# Fruit cannot be used for the ''chalipin''.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Teshuva (Kinyanim 7:5), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 195)</ref>
			# There is a major dispute if an animal can be used for ''chalipin''.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:2 writes that it is acceptable to use an animal for chalipin as it is similar to a kli, however, Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 195) notes that Shulchan Aruch seems to disagree and treats an animal like fruit. Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:5) also writes that animals are not acceptable but some allow using them for chalipin.</ref>
			# A coin cannot be used for ''chalipin''.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:6), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 197)</ref> A coin that was disqualified as currency can be used for ''chalipin''.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:2 based on Tur, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:6)</ref> Some ''poskim'' do not allow using a coin even if it isn't currency.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 199) based on Rambam</ref>

	==Eidei Kesubah (Witnesses)==		==Eidei Kesubah (Witnesses)==

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:30:30Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 5 January 2025
Line 92:		Line 92:
	==Making the Kinyan==		==Making the Kinyan==

	# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77 writes that the minhag is to have one of the witnesses make the kinyan.</ref> or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
	# The ~~minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan~~ chalipin~~, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil~~. ~~If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot~~. ~~It is not necessary for it to be 3 x~~ 3 tefachim~~, irrelevant of the material it is made out of~~.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. ~~195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5~~:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a ~~kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that~~ it is ~~a kli for~~ the ~~purposes of chalipin even though it is not a~~ kli ~~for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:~~3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He ~~argues that~~ the ~~rules~~ of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat ~~Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7~~ p. ~~192) concludes~~ that ~~3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials~~.</ref> ~~For this reason~~ a ~~standard handkerchief is acceptable but~~ a ~~''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly~~, ~~Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes~~ that ~~a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if~~ it ~~isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason~~ to be ~~stringent. However, Morasha v.~~ 3 ~~p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of~~ the ~~Pitchei Choshen~~, ~~and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though~~ it is ~~thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that~~ it ~~is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli~~, even ~~though~~ it is ~~thinner than~~ 3 tefachim. ~~He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such~~ a ~~garment, he doesn't understand why~~ this is the ~~case~~. Mishpat ~~Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2~~ p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# This is done by having one of the witnesses<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77 writes that the minhag is to have one of the witnesses make the kinyan.</ref> or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used, such as a hankerchief, to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
			# The chatan should be aware that his act of chalipin obligates him in his obligations of the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 80</ref>

			=== How high should the chatan raise the kli ===
			# The chatan should raise up the kli 3 tefachim.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref>
			# If he's doing a chalipin above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 tefachim above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 tefachim from the ground, even if it is within 3 tefachim of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 tefachim above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>
	# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>		# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>

			=== In whose presence ===
	# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> and does not need to be done with the kallah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78. This is different from the tenayim which requiring kinyanim to be done both with the chatan as well as with the kallah, or their representatives. The reason is that in tenayim both sides have mutual obligations, as opposed to a ketubah, which is really an obligation upon the chatan. </ref>		# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> and does not need to be done with the kallah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78. This is different from the tenayim which requiring kinyanim to be done both with the chatan as well as with the kallah, or their representatives. The reason is that in tenayim both sides have mutual obligations, as opposed to a ketubah, which is really an obligation upon the chatan. </ref>
	# The kinyan must be done in the presence of the edim who sign the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78</ref>		# The kinyan must be done in the presence of the edim who sign the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78</ref>

			=== Ownership of the kli for chalipin ===
	# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> It is best not for the one doing the kinyan chalipin to own the kli.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78 writes that it is advisable not to get involved with the dispute surrounding a borrowed kli for the chalipin.</ref>		# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> It is best not for the one doing the kinyan chalipin to own the kli.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78 writes that it is advisable not to get involved with the dispute surrounding a borrowed kli for the chalipin.</ref>
	# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished, the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10), Chomat Mishpat p. 78. Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>		# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished, the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10), Chomat Mishpat p. 78. Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>
	# The chatan should raise up the kli 3 tefachim.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref> If he's doing a chalipin above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 tefachim above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 tefachim from the ground, even if it is within 3 tefachim of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 tefachim above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>
	~~# The chatan should be aware that his act of chalipin obligates him in his obligations of the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 80</ref>~~

	=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===
			# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Chomat Mishpat writes that certain gedolim would specifically use a handkerchief and not a gartel because a gartel is not always 3 etzbaot wide, and wouldn't be considered a kli for purposes of tumah or chalipin. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# A kli can be used for chalipin even though it isn't even worth a prutah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>		# A kli can be used for chalipin even though it isn't even worth a prutah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:2, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:7:4), Mishpat Hakinyan (v. 2 p. 186)</ref>
	# A disposable kli could technically be used for a kinyan chalipin.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>		# A disposable kli could technically be used for a kinyan chalipin.<ref>Mishpat Hakinyan v. 2 p. 191 argues that a disposable utensil is a kli for chalipin even if it isn't susceptible to tumah. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:25:48Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 5 January 2025
Line 92:		Line 92:
	==Making the Kinyan==		==Making the Kinyan==

	# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77 writes that the minhag is to have one of the witnesses make the kinyan.</ref> or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>		# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>
	# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref>		# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> and does not need to be done with the kallah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78. This is different from the tenayim which requiring kinyanim to be done both with the chatan as well as with the kallah, or their representatives. The reason is that in tenayim both sides have mutual obligations, as opposed to a ketubah, which is really an obligation upon the chatan. </ref>
	# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref>		# The kinyan must be done in the presence of the edim who sign the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78</ref>
	# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished ~~and~~ the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10). Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>		# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref> It is best not for the one doing the kinyan chalipin to own the kli.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 78 writes that it is advisable not to get involved with the dispute surrounding a borrowed kli for the chalipin.</ref>
			# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished, the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10), Chomat Mishpat p. 78. Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>
			# The chatan should raise up the kli 3 tefachim.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 198:2 quotes a dispute between Rashi and Tosfot whether it is necessary to pick up the kli 1 or 3 tefachim. He quotes the opinion of 1 tefach second. Chomat Mishpat p. 79 writes that the chatan should pick it up 3 tefachim to be sure.</ref> If he's doing a chalipin above a table, some say that it needs to be raised up 3 tefachim above the table, while others hold that it is sufficient to raise it 3 tefachim from the ground, even if it is within 3 tefachim of the table. Initially a person should try to avoid this by having the chatan raise the kli 3 tefachim above the table.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 79</ref>
			# The chatan should be aware that his act of chalipin obligates him in his obligations of the kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat p. 80</ref>

	=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===		=== Details of the kli for chalipin ===

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:12:46Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 5 January 2025
Line 95:		Line 95:
	# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
	# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>		# The chatan should take grasp of a significant part of the kli. Some say that it is sufficient if he takes hold of part of the kli such that if he wanted he could pull the rest of it to him, while others argue that he must hold a significant part of the kli.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:8)</ref>
	# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah.		# The kinyan does not have to be done in the presence of the kallah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:3, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref>
	# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref>		# The kli used for the chalipin does not have to belong to the one doing the kinyan on behalf of the kallah. However, he may not use the kli for chalipin without permission from the owner of the kli. Similarly, it is fine if the mesader kiddushin borrows a kli from someone in order to do the kinyan.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:9)</ref>
	# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished and the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10). Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>		# Once the kli used for chalipin is transferred the transaction is finished and the chatan should return the kli to the mesader kiddushin.<ref>Rama C.M. 195:4, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:10). Rama explains that it is understood that the kinyan is done with the intention of symbolically enacting the transaction but the recipient of the kli will return the kli.</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T15:04:57Z

Making the Kinyan

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 # The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
-# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a gartel is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref>
+# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli. Mishpat Hakinyan (Rav Ovadia Yosef Toledano 2:7 p. 192) concludes that 3x3 etzbaot is sufficient for all materials.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a ''gartel'' is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref> Some poskim allow using a ''gartel'' for a kinyan even though it is thinner than 3x3 etzbaot.<ref>Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) writes that it is obvious that a whole garment is considered significant and counts as a kli, even though it is thinner than 3 tefachim. He notes that even though he saw one gadol disqualify such a garment, he doesn't understand why this is the case. Mishpat Hakinyan (2:7 v. 2 p. 192) agrees with Pitchei Choshen. He quotes the Divrei Yatziv CM 55 that the minhag is to use a gartel for the kinyan chalipin. He also quotes the Shevet Halevi 9:307 who technically agrees that a gartel is acceptable for chalipin but not use it in practice because he wants to demonstrate that this transaction is important and not a game. </ref>
 ==Eidei Kesubah (Witnesses)==

YitzchakSultan1: /* Making the Kinyan */

2025-01-05T14:30:30Z

Making the Kinyan

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 5 January 2025
Line 93:		Line 93:

	# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# The minhag is to make a kinyan chalipin for the obligations in a kesubah.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref> This is done by having one of the witnesses or someone else who is acting on behalf of the kallah, such as the mesader kiddushin, give a kli (utensil) that is fit to be used to the chatan who then raises it up. This act causes the chatan to become obligated to fulfill his obligations as outlined in the kesuba.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>
	# The minhag is to use a ~~hankerchif~~ for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or ~~hankerchief~~ is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli.</ref> For this reason a standard ~~hankerchief~~ is acceptable but a gartel is not since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77</ref>		# The minhag is to use a handkerchief for kinyan chalipin, but really it is perfectly acceptable to use any utensil. If a cloth or handkerchief is being used, it must be at least 3 by 3 etzbaot. It is not necessary for it to be 3 x 3 tefachim, irrelevant of the material it is made out of.<ref>Shulchan Aruch C.M. 195:4. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Bear Yitzchak CM 5:2) raises an issue that perhaps this measure of 3x3 etzbaot is only sufficient if the garment is made out of wool or linen, but other materials must be 3x3 tefachim since those are the measurements that are found regarding tumah for the cloth to be considered a kli. However, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan concludes that it is a kli for the purposes of chalipin even though it is not a kli for the purposes of tumah, as long as it is of requisite size of 3x3 etzbaot. Pitchei Teshuva 195:3 quotes this. Aruch Hashulchan 195:5 and Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) agree. The Radziner ([https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&st=&pgnum=507 Sidrei Taharot Kelim 248b]) has another approach to this question but with the same practical conclusion. He argues that the rules of chalipin and tumah are equated, but nonetheless 3x3 etzbaot suffices since a person can make a garment accept tumah once he actively uses it. Since doing a chalipin is a function of the garment, using it for the symbol transaction it thereby demonstrates that it indeed is a kli.</ref> For this reason a standard handkerchief is acceptable but a gartel is not acceptable for chalipin since it is too thin.<ref>Chomat Mishpat v. 1 p. 77. Interestingly, Pitchei Choshen (Kinyanim 7:4 fnt. 13) would allow using a gartel since he writes that a whole garment is automatically considered a kli even if it isn't the requisite measure of 3x3 etzbaot. He even writes that a certain gadol was careful not to use a garment that was thinner than 3 etzbaot, but he doesn't understand why there is any reason to be stringent. However, Morasha v. 3 p. 256 notes that this is a great nuance of the Pitchei Choshen, and Chomat Mishpat disagrees with Pitchei Choshen and disqualifies a gartel for chalipin. </ref>

	==Eidei Kesubah (Witnesses)==		==Eidei Kesubah (Witnesses)==