Redundancy Explained
“Such And Such [I Give My Son]…”
(Kesubos 102b)
When a couple gets engaged, it is customary in certain circles for their parents to write “tannaim” [literally, “conditions”] – a contract of sorts, in which each side details its financial obligations in the marriage. In some places, it was customary to write these tannaim twice: once when the engagement is announced and once immediately before the wedding. These two agreements were called tannaim rishonim – the first agreement, and tannaim acharonim – the last agreement. Why did they need two tannaim?
Obligation to Give
The Rema (C.M. 245; E.H. 51) raises this question, and explains that in the first tannaim, the parents sign a contract obligating them to give a certain amount of money. However, such a contract is not necessarily enforceable in a court of Torah law. The Shulchan Aruch rules, “If a person writes in a contract that he will give something, even if it is signed by witnesses, the beneficiary still has no claim to it” (Shulchan Aruch, ibid). Until the benefactor gives him the object, he can still regret his decision and refuse to pay.
Some poskim, however, maintain that if there was a legal act of acquisition – a kinyan, such as lifting up a handkerchief as a sign of acquisition, the benefactor can no longer retract his decision. The Rema therefore explains that the first tannaim does not involve a legal act of acquisition, while the second one does.
This explanation raises several questions. First, why is the first tannaim made if it has no legal binding? Secondly, why is the second tannaim considered an act of acquisition, while the first is not?
The First Tannaim
The Sma (ibid, s.k. 4) explains that the couple’s parents do not make the first tannaim as a legally binding contract, but simply to state their proposals. They do not actually commit to fulfilling those proposals until the second tannaim are made before the wedding.
The Second Tannaim
Why are the second tannaim more effective than the first? We find in our Gemara that if the parents of a couple verbalize, “How much do you give to your son? We give such and such an amount. How much do you give to your daughter? We give such and such an amount. If they then rise and make a marriage, they are obligated to fulfill their commitments, since this is a case in which ownership is transferred by a word.” The commentaries explain that transfer of ownership requires a kinyan, such as paying money, or lifting the purchased object. However, this is only in order to show that the two sides are fully decided. In this case, since the parents are so overjoyed to see their children married, they have clearly decided to transfer ownership of the dowry, even without making a kinyan. Therefore, when tannaim are written immediately before the wedding, they are legally binding (see Maharitz, 213; Shufrei D’Yaakov 14; Makneh, Kuntrus Acharon on Shulchan Aruch, 51; Otzar HaPoskim 51, s.k. 23; Atzei Arazim, 51 s.k. 10).
Empty Promises
The Meshivas Nafesh (70, cited in Otzar HaPoskim ibid, s.k. 24) offers a difference between the two tannaim. He writes that when a person obligates himself to give a specific object, his commitment is not legally binding. Since he had a certain object in mind, had he been serious he would have just given it instead of making a promise to give it in the future. However, when the parents promise a dowry, they do not promise to give a certain specific object. Rather, they make a monetary obligation to pay a certain amount of money. This is binding and enforceable in a court of Torah law. What then is the need for a second tannaim? This is to prevent the two sides from later claiming that they already gave the money they had promised during the course of the engagement. To preclude any such excuse, they renew their commitments immediately before the wedding.
