Mishneh Torah, Marriage 5-7

Hook

Why does the legality of a marriage contract depend on the status of a half-eaten piece of bread? In Mishneh Torah, Marriage 5:1, the value of the "ring" is not just about price—it’s about permission.

Context

Rambam (Maimonides) codifies the principle that kiddushin (betrothal) requires the transfer of an object of value (perutah). However, he insists that if the object is assur b'hana'ah (forbidden for any benefit, like chametz on Passover), the marriage is void. This reflects a deep legal premise: if the law forbids you from deriving benefit from an object, the law effectively declares that the object possesses no legal "existence" as property.

Text Snapshot

"When a man consecrates a woman with an object from which it is forbidden to derive benefit... she is not consecrated... For a woman to be consecrated, she must receive an article worth a p'rutah." (MT, Marriage 5:1) [https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Marriage_5-7]

Close Reading

• Insight 1 (Ontology of Value): Rambam links "value" to "legality." If the Torah forbids benefit, the object ceases to be mamon (money/property). It is not just "cheap"; it is legally non-existent.
• Insight 2 (Key Term - Assur b'hana'ah): This category is the strictest tier of prohibition. Unlike food you simply shouldn't eat, assur b'hana'ah items cannot even be used for trade or barter.
• Insight 3 (The Tension): There is a friction between the subjective value (what the couple thinks it's worth) and the objective legal status (what the Torah permits). The law overrides personal intent.

Two Angles

• Ramban (Nachmanides) & The Rashba: They argue that if the woman can derive benefit in a non-standard way (e.g., selling it to someone for whom it is permitted), the marriage might hold.
• Rambam: He maintains a formalist view—if it is forbidden, it is "worthless" in the eyes of the law, regardless of any potential loopholes or secondary markets.

Practice Implication

This teaches that in both legal and ethical life, "value" is socially and legally constructed. We cannot imbue our actions or our "gifts" with meaning if the foundation of those actions is prohibited or hollow.

Chevruta Mini

1. If you give a gift that is "forbidden" to the recipient, does the act of giving still create a relationship, even if the legal contract fails?
2. Should the law care more about the intrinsic worth of an object or the intent of the person giving it?

Takeaway

In kiddushin, a legal bond cannot be built upon a prohibited foundation; if the law forbids the benefit, the object is null.