Ketubot 102: Verbal Contracts; the Power of Blood Libel Lies

Are there any contracts that require no act of acquisition?  Where a verbal agreement obligates the parities to complete their transaction?  The rabbis give us the example of a couple negotiating marriage.  Each person (or their parents) will ask how much money the other will be bringing into the marriage.  Once that agreement has been made, there is no need for acquisition of this money; the couple is betrothed and a divorce is required to break that bond.

Another example is that of a person securing a priest for the pidyon ha ben, the redemption of the first born son.  One can promise to pay for the service without having paid and the obligation is binding. The rabbis argue that perhaps even payment does not ensure that the son will be redeemed; payment might be in the form of a document and Torah law requires monetary payment.

The rabbis discuss guarantors and unsold property/liened property.  A rabbi named Shimon ben Nannas (no joke, his name is BenNanas) teaches that guarantors have no legal standing in contract law.  An example of one who stops a marketplace strangling by offering to pay the debt in dispute.  There is nothing obligating that person to make the payment promised; the debt preexisted his intervention.

In amud (b), the rabbis discuss whether such verbal agreements are even allowed to be written down. And in other circumstances, do we read the word "write" to mean "say"?  The example of a young woman verses a grown woman is used to better understand this concept.  Would a father write down the monetary agreement that is arranged?  What if his daughter is grown (ie. 6 months following puberty) and he is not officially responsible for her actions any longer?  Would he continue to write down these negotiated sums if he is not required to part of the process any longer?

We are reminded that a woman and man must both consent to a betrothal for that betrothal to be valid.  The reasoning is based on a comparison to divorce.  In a divorce, the husband does not requires his wife's consent.  In betrothal, it is the woman who must give consent for herself to be given to the husband.  An interesting interpretation.

A final thought that tells us about child rearing and about dangers in ancient society: a minor son whose father dies is permitted to live with his mother if she and the father's heirs want the boy to live with them.  This is because the son could be in danger if he lives with the heirs, who would benefit from this death.  A story is told without much detail of a minor boy who was killed by the heirs he lived with on the eve of Pesach.    Our notes teach that another version of the story occurs on erev Rosh HaShana.  In both cases, the story demonstrates the heirs' lack of concern for their impurity and sin even before Pesach which requires purity and Rosh Hashana which will involve judgement.  The story was likely moved to Rosh Hashana to avoid the effect of the anti-semitic blood libel lies.