Siman 60

The Tur wrote: It is the custom of young men that when one marries a woman, his friends send him gifts so that he may be strengthened by them regarding the expenses he incurred for the chuppah, and they come and eat with him during the seven days of the feast or part of them; and when they also marry, he pays them back for what they did for him and sends to each and every one of them according to what they sent to him, and he eats and drinks and rejoices with them, and this is called "shoshvinut" – meaning friendship. Thus far his words.

And this has the law of a loan, for if one sent to his fellow and he subsequently married, and his fellow did not return and send to him, he may sue him in beit din. However, he cannot sue him before he marries. Furthermore, if the one returning desired to return it to him before he married, he may say, "I will not accept it from you now until I marry a woman, for I desire to rejoice with you in the manner that you rejoiced with me." And it is similar to a loan in this as well—that there are times when the borrower is not permitted to repay without the knowledge of the lender, such as one who lent to him in a settled area, he may not return it to him in the wilderness against his will, as is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 74. And this is also the case with this groom; it is like returning it to him in the wilderness, for he diminishes his honor [the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 7 of Zechiyah].

And even when he marries, he cannot sue him unless he marries in the same manner as the first married; but if he changes his celebration from that of the first—he is not obligated to return it to him, because he can say, "I only wish to do for you as you did for me." And some say whether the change is a reduction in celebration compared to the first, such as if the first married a virgin and he marries a widow, he can say to him, "When you marry a virgin I will repay you," and likewise if the first held his celebration in public and this one wishes to do so in private, either because it is a time of distress or because he wishes to limit the expense, he can say, "When you do so in public I will pay you"; and whether it is the opposite, where the second comes to add to the celebration, such as where the first married a widow and he marries a virgin, or the first did so in private and he does so in public—the first can say to him, "When you do as I did I will pay you," and not otherwise. And some say specifically when he comes to reduce the celebration compared to the first, but when he comes to add to the celebration—the first cannot say this to him.

If the second comes to return to the first more than what he sent to him – it is permitted, and there is no concern of ribbit in this, for he did not give it with the intent of ribbit, as had he wanted, he could have reduced it; rather, it is out of the joy of friendship that he increased his gift. And if shemittah passed between the marriage of the first and the marriage of the second – shemittah does not cancel it, for we do not call this "he shall not exact," since he cannot sue him until his time arrives when he marries a woman and returns it to him. Therefore, if the second married and did not sue the first, and afterwards shemittah passed – he can no longer sue him, for since he married, it was within his power to exact it, and when shemittah arrived, we call it "he shall not exact" [the Maggid Mishneh there].

Sometimes the shoshbinut money returns to his heirs, as will be explained, and when it returns, the firstborn does not take a double portion in it, for the firstborn only takes a portion of the birthright in that which is possessed and not in that which is prospective. And this is not possessed, for if he had not married a woman, he would not have been obligated to pay him. And for this reason, the yavam also does not take of it; for example, if after he acted as a shoshbin for his fellow, and his fellow returned to act as a shoshbin for him and ate and rejoiced with him, and this one did not manage to repay him until the groom died and his brother performed yibbum with his wife—the yavam does not merit it, for the yavam does not take in that which is prospective, as I wrote in siman 163.

Reuven who sent shoshvinut to Shimon, Shimon is not obligated to return it to him unless he invites him to eat and drink and rejoice with him. However, if he is in the city or near it such that it is possible for him to know that Reuven is marrying a woman, he should come on his own to eat and drink and rejoice with him and repay him. And when he does not come, he must pay him in full even though he did not eat with him, for he makes himself liable by the fact that he did not come on his own. However, the Rambam wrote that this is in a place where there is no custom to invite each and every person, but rather everyone who hears comes on his own; but if it is the way to invite, he must invite him. And if they invited him and he did not come – he must pay in full; but if they did not invite him – he is entirely exempt.

If he was not in the city or near it, such that he did not know if this person married a woman, the groom must inform him to come. If he did not inform him, he pays him what he owes him, but he deducts from it what he would have eaten had he been there and pays the remainder. And let it not be difficult for you: why did we say that when he is in the city and the custom is to invite and he did not invite him, he is exempt from everything? For certainly it is so, that when he is in the city and did not invite him, he has insulted him as if he does not desire his acquaintance, and why should he pay him? But when he is not in the city, the fact that he did not inform him is because he did not want to trouble him to come from a distance, for such is the way of the world [it appears to me]. And how does he deduct for him? If he owed him a zuz, he pays him nothing, because he would not have fed him for less than a zuz. If he owed him a sela, he deducts for him half a sela, for such is the custom, that one who sends a sela is fed for half a sela. And from a sela and upward, each one deducts for him according to what is appropriate to feed one who sent a gift such as this, for according to the abundance of the gift, they prepare for each person.

Reuven who sent shoshvinut to Shimon and Reuven died before he married, or he married and died within the days of the feast – Shimon is not obligated to pay the shoshvinut to the heirs, because he can say "Give me my shoshvin and I will rejoice with him in the manner that he rejoiced with me, and since I cannot rejoice with him, I am exempt." Therefore, if the days of joy concluded and he rejoiced with him and then he died – Shimon is obligated to pay his heirs. Likewise, if Reuven called for him and he did not come, or if Shimon was not in the city and therefore he did not inform him and the days of the feast concluded and afterwards he died – Shimon is obligated to return the shoshvinut to his heirs, either in its entirety or with a deduction according to what has been explained.

And likewise, if Shimon died and afterward Reuven married a woman and the days of the feast were completed, as to whether the heirs of Shimon are obligated to pay Reuven – the Rambam, of blessed memory, ruled that it depends on the custom. For in a place where they are accustomed to collect from the heirs – we compel the heirs to pay with the deduction of his food, and in a place where there is no custom – they pay nothing. And the reason is that since Shimon died, it is a doubt whether his properties were liened, or perhaps since Shimon cannot rejoice with him, his properties were not liened and the heirs are exempt. Therefore, it depends on the custom, for out of doubt we do not extract money, and so wrote the Tur. And some say that the heirs of Shimon are always obligated to pay, for since the delay is not because of Reuven but from him, Reuven can say, "What am I liable for regarding the matter of the delay – it is not from me" [Ramban]. However, the primary view is like the first opinion [the Maggid Mishneh], for behold, Shimon is also not liable for the matter. But if Shimon died after Reuven married and after he rejoiced with him, or when he was able to rejoice and did not come – according to all, the heirs of Shimon are obligated to pay, whether the whole amount or with a deduction as has been written, for behold, his properties were liened since he already became obligated in his lifetime to pay.

In a case where the heirs are obligated to pay when their father was obligated for what was sent to him, it is not only necessary to state this if the obligation is for what was sent for his own wedding, but even if he became obligated because they sent to one of his sons for his marriage, where the father married him off and prepared for his son the needs of the chuppah and the feast—the heirs are obligated to return it. And it is not subtracted from the portion of the inheritance of this son to whom it was sent, but rather it is returned from the general estate, since the obligation was upon the father, for he married him off. And there is a great principle in this—that even though the heirs return the debt of their father, nevertheless, they do not have the law of shoshvinut such that they would be able to rejoice with this groom; rather, only this son, for whose sake they sent to the father, may rejoice, and not the others, even though the payment is from the general estate.

The sages taught in the Mishnah: Shoshvinut is collected in beit din, but one who sends to his fellow jugs of wine and jugs of oil, they are not collected in beit din because it is a charitable act. The Rambam explains that this is its explanation: Shoshvinut that is collected in beit din is only when he sent ready money, but when he sent types of food and drink, this does not have the law of shoshvinut that has been explained, even if he sent it to him at the time of the wedding canopy and rejoiced with him, for the enactment was only for ready money. However, several of our teachers explain that there is no distinction in this, and that which we learned that jugs of wine and oil are not collected in beit din, this is when he did not send them at the time of his wedding canopy, or even at the time of his wedding canopy but he did not go to rejoice with him, for in this there is no law of shoshvinut. And that which the Tanna took as an example "jugs of wine and oil," it is the way of the matter, for when one wants to eat there and rejoice with him, he sends money and the groom will prepare with them; but if he does not want to eat and rejoice there but intends to benefit him, he sends him types of food and drink. But as for the law, there is no distinction between money and types of food and drink.

The Tur wrote: One of the brothers who performed shoshvinut for his friend during his father's lifetime, and his father gave him what he sent, and the father died and the one for whom the shoshvinut was performed came to repay—if the father designated it for this one when he sent it, such that he said to him, "Go and perform shoshvinut for so-and-so," now when it returns, it belongs to him alone. But if he did not designate it for any specific one, but rather said, "One of you shall perform shoshvinut for so-and-so," and this one stood up of his own accord and performed it—it returns to all of them and they divide it equally as with other debts of their father. And he does not need to return everything at the marriage of the first one who marries, but rather the first one who marries pays the portion that reaches him. And regarding the matter of the sender's rejoicing with the brothers, the Ramah wrote: If they all rejoiced with him, when he returns it to each and every one, he must rejoice with him, and if it is impossible for him to rejoice, he must deduct from it for him. And if they did not rejoice with him, but rather only one of the brothers, he also only has to rejoice with the one who rejoiced with him, and if it is impossible for him to rejoice, he deducts from his portion; but to all the others, when they marry, he gives each one his portion and does not deduct anything from him. Thus far his words. [This is for the Tur the explanation of the baraita there, that he sent shoshvinut to his father, see there; and for the Rambam in chapter 9 of Hilkhot Nachalot there is another explanation for this, and it was explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 286, see there].

One who sent shoshbinut to his fellow and he refuses to take it, and this one entreats him until he swears that he will take it, this is a gift and it does not return to him, for he did not want to receive it but rather he forced him to do so; and so too in any similar case [Darkhei Moshe in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham]. And all the laws of shoshbinut that have been explained are not practiced among us, and even in the time of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, this was not practiced, and therefore he did not bring all the laws in his Shulchan Tahor, as he himself wrote.