A couple of months ago, we discussed the evolution of the term אירוסין from its classic, technical meaning of a preliminary stage of marriage, to its modern meaning of engagement, and we noted an opinion that disapproves, on Halachic grounds, of the modern usage. My father has shown me that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is also reported to have shared this view, and to have generally personally avoided using the term:
הגרש”ז אויערבאך זצ”ל היה אומר, שהביטוי “אירוסין” אינו נכון, כי הרי “אירוסין” פירושו “קידושין”, והוא בעצמו בדרך כלל היה כותב (על מתנות, מכתבי מז”ט) “בקשרי שידוכין”.1
The Lubavitcher Rebbe felt even more strongly about this, calling the prevailing usage “עם-הארצות”:
ישנם רבנים שבשעה שרוצים להודיע שיתקיימו קישורי תנאים בין חתן לכלה, שולחים מכתבים ומפרסמים על כך בעתונים, כדי שיגיע לקכ”ז מדינות ואז שמו הולך לפניו, וכותבים שם שפלוני בן פלוני ופלונית בת פלוני “נתארסו”.
והרי זה פשוט ענין של “עם הארצות” – שהרי ענינה של אירוסין גורם שדינה כדין אשה לכל הדברים, ופשוט אם כן שזה נוגע בדיני נפשות.
מה שאין כן מה שנעשה כאן, שהוא מה שנקרא קישורי תנאים, שם ולשון שהובא בפוסקים. ומדוע אם כן צריך להכניס עצמו לספיקות, בדבר שיכול אחר כך להביא לידי מכשול, בשעה שאפשר לקרותו בשם “קישורי תנאים”. (מדברי האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש זצ”ל, שידוכים ונישאין)2
While I am broadly sympathetic to the Rebbe’s basic preference for the classic Rabbinic term “תנאים”, especially as I suspect that the modern usage derives from a general, programmatic preference for Biblical over Mishnaic / Talmudic Hebrew, and a disregard for תורה שבעל פה (which assigns אירוסין its very precise meaning), I must nevertheless remind the reader that this usage is hardly a recent innovation, but was actually already common in medieval times, as attested to by Rosh:
שכן לשון העולם לקרות למשודכת ארוסה3
Good heorah re the Rosh.
In general, it’s rather pointles to insist upon hebrew as it was used in Boblical times. Hebrew is whatever the current usage is, as the rambam notes in the first mishna to terumah. Or perhaps purist should insist that “chashmal” should not be used to descibel electricity, as that’s not how the word was used in the Bible?
I have, indeed, IIRC, heard of reactionaries who oppose the use of חשמל for electricity, particularly since the Biblical reference is to something exalted …
I certainly agree that language evolves, but I still do believe in fighting rearguard actions, at least before the new usage has become totally accepted, much as, say, the French try to resist the Americanization of their pure tongue, and much as American purists try to resist things such as the disappearance of the who / whom distinction, or, Heaven help up, the infer / imply distinction …
I’m afraid I don’t understand, Yitzhak. Is your position that language should evolve, but some sort of efforts to stall the evolution is good for the language?
Partly, yes, that in general, efforts to stand athwart linguistic evolution and yell “stop!” are good. Moreover, in those cases where the evolution is particularly undesirable, as in this case, in my opinion, due to the above-mentioned considerations, we should definitely attempt to block the changes before they take root, even if we (grudgingly) concede that they will be acceptable after the fact.
I am, in general, something of a purist and a conservative, and even though I’m not a fanatic about such things, I do often believe in making at least some kind of effort to preserve the old ways.