As far as I know, there is no source in Jewish law or history that indicates a diamond ring is the symbol of engagement. Since the diamond ring has become so closely identified with en
gagement, though, many people expect a ring to make it “official.” However, truly binding engagements in Jewish law are linked to major consequences if they are breached, whether in the case of Tenaim or the betrothal of kiddushin. Consequently, the engagement ring would be classified as a gift, though not a contractual consideration within the framework of Jewish law.
While some, like Lubavitcher Hasidim, delay giving the diamond engagement ring until the wedding, most authorities do not view giving the engagement ring as a problem of questionable kiddushin. For one thing, the wedding ring is supposed to be devoid of stones and even decorations that may obscure its actual value. Also the engagement ring is not presented in the presence of designated witnesses with the intention of a halachically binding betrothal. Consequently, if the engagement is broken, it is simply a matter of a change or plans rather than a halachic [lawful] change of status that could require a get [contract of divorce].
Given the popularity of the convention of diamond engagement ring in the world at large, not offering what is considered standard may be regarded as an oversight at best or a personal slight at worst. Should the groom (or his parents) not be in a position to offer what the bride expects, he should be honest with her and offer options. She may prefer a different token and not care for a ring at all, or she may be content with an imitation diamond, or she may prefer to wait for him to save up enough for a diamond. Certainly, she deserves the respect and consideration of being consulted about her preferences. Under no circumstances should he try to pass off a cubic zirconia as a real diamond to appease her. She is bound to find out about the deception sooner or later, and he would have lost her trust, which is of far greater value than any precious stone.
Related articles: -Aspects-of-the-Jewish-wedding--the-betrothal-and-the-ring -Diamond-engagement-ring-history Advice-for-engagement--ring-presentation Engagement-ring-advice-part-1- and -part-2 -part-3-of-3
Comments
In the Biblical story of Eliezer meeting Rivka, Eliezer presents Rivka with a ring even though the formal bethrothal to Isaac took place only later. Apparently the idea of giving a ring as a gift goes back to ancient times (though then it was prob. a nose ring and prob. not diamond either).
It was a nose ring and some bracelets. I brought that up in the post called -A-Biblical-wedding. it's the one with the picture of camels.
It is my understanding that in at least part of Satmar that diamond engagement rings are no longer allowed and zirconium has become the rule--because many people cannot afford diamonds anymore and to eliminate 'keeping up with the Shapiros.'
Sol, thanks for commenting. This was a suggested proposal to help keep spiraling costs under some control within that community. However, it not universal within the Jewish community. I don't even know if all of the Satmar adhere to the restrictions. Already a few years ago restrictions on weddings for everyone were proposed. They included such things like eliminating the vort [formal engagement party with dinner]. Yet people continue to hold vorts and make weddings more lavish than the restrictions call for.
While I don't think they considered it legally binding, the rabbis on my beit din when I converted went through the roof when I showed them (upon request) the diamond engagement ring my Jewish fiance had given me. I was ordered to take it off, and as a result of the horror of the incident it never went back on, even after the wedding. Legally binding, no. Very serious statement, yes.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!