Bava Basra, Chapter 9, Mishnah 5. In the previous mishnah, we discussed gifts given to grooms, called shushvinus. In the mishnah before us, we will deviate slightly from the general topic of the chapter - how to divide the remaining assets of a deceased person's estate - and discuss gifts that pass from the groom to the bride, called sivlonos.
Sivlonos are given after the first stage of marriage, which is the erusin stage. That is to say, the act of kiddushin has already been performed: the groom has given the ring, the bride has agreed and accepted it, and from now on the two are obligated to transition into living together as husband and wife. Practically, she is already a married woman, except that she continues to live in her father's house for about a year.
This was the custom in the time of the Mishnah: erusin was held around the age of twelve, and about a year later the second stage was held - the chuppah - and then the woman moved to her husband's house. For this reason, the groom used to send the sivlonos immediately after the erusin, as early as the day after receiving the ring, so that she would have gifts to enjoy during her stay at her father's house, until her move to her husband's house about a year later.
Two types of sivlonos:
Consumable gifts - items intended for consumption, use, and enjoyment while she stays in her father's house, such as wine, sweets, and even money for expenses. These things will be used up while she is still in her father's house.
Durable gifts - items that last, such as gold jewelry or household utensils, which she will bring with her to their new home.
What happens when the marriage is cancelled?
This is the question that the mishnah discusses. Cancellation of the marriage after erusin can occur in several ways:
The bride passes away, and thus the chuppah and marriage are cancelled.
The groom passes away.
The groom backs out. Since a woman who has undergone kiddushin is considered a married woman, he must give her a get and thereby cancel the marriage.
The bride backs out and refuses to live with him. Here too a get is required, and the marriage comes to an end before it has begun. This possibility is more complex, and we will not deal with it now.
The basic premise of the mishnah is clear: the sivlonos were given on the assumption that the two were going to be married. Therefore, if they were not married in the end, the groom is entitled to claim the gifts back. And therefore he can even collect them from her heirs, and likewise his heirs can collect them from her, when the marriage does not take place.
However, the mishnah teaches that the law is more complex: "Hasholei'ach sivlonos leveis chamiv" - the groom sends the gifts to his betrothed, who is still staying in her father's house. "Shalach sham me'ah maneh" - a maneh is one hundred dinars, meaning that one hundred maneh is ten thousand dinars. In other words, even if he sent her things worth ten thousand dinars - and we are specifically talking about consumable items, not expensive jewelry - "ve'achal sham se'udas chasan afilu bedinar", he ate a meal in his father-in-law's house called a groom's meal, and even if it was only worth a single dinar, then "einan nigbin" - he cannot claim those consumable items back, because he has waived and given up his right to claim them.
What is this groom's meal?
The term "groom's meal" can refer to two separate meals:
Public meal - A sort of public engagement party, a 'vort' style meal. This is not the intention of the Mishnah before us.
Private meal - After the engagement and the public meal, the groom sends the gifts, and then he arrives at his father-in-law's house and holds a private meal to rejoice with the family. This is the groom's meal discussed by the Mishnah, a sort of gift-meal.
The logic is that when the groom merited this experience, and rejoiced with such great joy in his betrothed and his new family, it is proven that he waived his rights. From now on, the gifts are considered an absolute gift with no conditions, and they remain in her possession - provided that they are not durable goods but rather items meant for consumption - and he can never claim them back, even if the process does not ultimately result in marriage.
"Lo achal sham seudas chasan - harei elu nigbin" - If he did not eat a groom's meal there, they are collected:
But if he did not merit that experience of coming to his father-in-law's house and eating the festive meal privately after sending the gifts, he did not waive anything. He did indeed give all the gifts, but giving them was conditional and based on the assumption that the two of them were about to be married. Since they did not marry - and even if it is not her fault, but rather she passed away - "harei elu nigbin" - they are collected: he comes to his father-in-law and says to him, I sent these bottles of wine with the understanding that we were about to be married, and since we did not marry, you must return them to me. The meaning of the term "collected" is that the matter is collected and enforced in Beis Din.
And it must be clarified: this does not mean that only what remains intact is returned, but rather that he is entitled to claim a full refund in Beis Din for everything he gave - as he did not waive his rights at all, and his gift was conditional on the marriage, a condition that was never fulfilled.
The approach of the Bartenura and the Rashbam:
In the next part of the Mishnah, according to the Bartenura who learns following the approach of the Rashbam, the discussion is about a case where the groom explicitly stated his intention. Until now, regarding the gifts, there was no explicit mention of his intentions. But here it speaks of two cases:
"Shalach sivlonos merubin sheyachzeru imah leveis balah" - If he sent many gifts so that they would return with her to her husband's house: the multitude of gifts is not the main point, but rather the fact that he explicitly stated that he expects the items he brought into his father-in-law's house to be brought to his house, and that she would bring them with her into the marriage. Since he was explicit in his words, "harei elu nigbin" - they are collected, and in any case they will have to return them to him or return their value if the marriage is cancelled - and this does not depend on the meal at all. The matter of the meal was stated for when he did not make his intention explicit; but since he made it explicit that he intends to receive a full return if the marriage does not come to fruition, he receives a full return.
"Sivlonos mu'atin shetishtamesh bahen beveis aviha" - Few gifts for her to use in her father's house: here too, the small amount of gifts is not the determining factor, but rather this is the usual situation. The main point is that he explicitly said that these gifts are intended for her enjoyment while she is living in her father's house. Since he made it clear that he does not expect them to be returned to him, "einan nigbin" - they are not collected - and even if the marriage takes place, he gave this as an absolute gift and explicitly said that the items do not need to return, and therefore he does not collect them.
The opinion of the commentators as halachah:
This is how the Bartenura learned following the approach of the Rashbam, that everything depends on the groom's explicit statement, whereas the mention of "many" and "few" is merely incidental, as these are the usual cases. However, as practical halachah, the commentators learned differently: the difference between the second part of the Mishnah and its first part does not depend on an explicit statement, but on the nature of the gifts - durable goods that last and are meant to remain for the marriage, as opposed to goods that are not durable. That is to say, the items that were intended to be brought to his future house are collected back, whereas the items that are not like this are not collected, and are considered to remain in her possession.
In summary: In this Mishnah, we learned about the sivlonos - the gifts that the groom used to send to his betrothed after the engagement, while she was staying in her father's house. We discussed the distinction between perishable gifts and durable gifts, the question of their status when the marriage is cancelled, and the ruling of the Mishnah that eating a groom's meal in his father-in-law's house proves a waiver and prevents their collection. We also saw the approach of the Bartenura and the Rashbam, that everything depends on an explicit statement, as opposed to the opinion of the commentators as halachah, that the distinction is between durable goods and non-durable goods.