I'm sitting here pondering the signifigance of my engagement ring. I don't like diamonds, so I'm not wearing one. Instead I have a beautiful sapphire. Yay, I got jewelry... but you have to wonder - what's the point?
I think that part of the reason people wear engagement rings is to let others know that they're taken (familiar ground for us Kisoi Rosh fans). The symbol of a diamond ring screams - "I have a man, a man has me, step back". It's like a warning to would-be flirts.
So when you get back to the sapphire stone in my beautiful band (I love our taste, Avs!), one has to wonder if we've stepped far enough out of the bounds of the symbol to, in essence, not have the symbol at all.
This all occurred to me before I got the ring. I'm not so spaced-out as to not have had these points spinning 'round my head before I experienced peoples' reactions to my ring. Naturally the question arose - why bother with the "symbol" if it's fulfilling the role of the symbol after all?
TANGENT: In a circle I have been known to rub shoulders with, it is now de riguer to gift the bride with a ring, bracelet, necklace, flowers. In that cricle, if you only get a ring, you have not fulfilled the parameters of the 'engagament symbol'. :END TANGENT
I told Avraham, I'm sure, that I don't want or need a ring. I'm equally sure that he laughed at me, for a few reasons.
1: To us, the ring fulfills the requirements for the symbol. (Sheitel!)
2: We both buy into general protocol, and couldn't divorce ourselves from the idea that a public symbol of sorts was necessary
3: It's a beautiful gift, a token of his love & regard for me, regardless of its societal symbol status or lack thereof.
All told, most people don't recognize my ring as an engagament l'chatchila, but once they know, they (pretend to) appreciate the nuance we have added to the symbol known as the engagement ring.
Beyond all that, there's a freedom in the fact that according to Halakha we were not forced to get a diamond ring. If there were a Halakhic significance or imperative to other people recognizing my ring as the symbol it is, you could bet your bottom dollar that there'd be a colorless stone on my finger right now.
Mer - tell me what you think, apply as you wish. Gloves off, baby! : )
1. 'A visitor' posted on the Sat 17 Apr 2004, 11:15 pm
ReplyDeleteThe stupidity of bidieved rings (i.e., "Ok, we're engaged now so, bidieved, I've gotta shower you with a 10k trinket") is twofold:
1) It creates a system where guys who don't have that much money to begin with are forced to go into debt, all to let a girl know how much they care.
2) Well-wishers focus primarily on the ring and not the simcha.
When my older sister got engaged (incidently, she and my BIL also went the sapphire route) one of the first things my BIL told her was to go get a manicure, because *everybody* would be staring at her hand for the next two days. And you know what? He was 100% right. Everyone was all "Congradulations, this is so nice . . . now LEMMESEETHEROCK!". It really bothered me that they were paying more attention to her (admittedly gorgous) ring than they were to the actual engagement.
Sometimes symbols serve as a physical manifestation of what's already inherrently known. As you said, "It's a beautiful gift, a token of his love & regard for me, regardless of its societal symbol status or lack thereof." That's exactly as it should be. However, all too often the symbol can overshadow the event it's meant to personify.
To make a long story short: Dani's right, everyone who doesn't recognize that is dumb, And that's not the sort of inherrent knowledge that we'd ever need a symbol to reinforce . . . it's too plainly known. :)
Meredith
2. 'A visitor' posted on the Fri 23 Apr 2004, 10:11 am
ReplyDeleteWhat's the halachic ramification of _any_ ring, colorless or not?
DeBeers