Halakhah su Genesi 43:34
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א מַשְׂאֹ֜ת מֵאֵ֣ת פָּנָיו֮ אֲלֵהֶם֒ וַתֵּ֜רֶב מַשְׂאַ֧ת בִּנְיָמִ֛ן מִמַּשְׂאֹ֥ת כֻּלָּ֖ם חָמֵ֣שׁ יָד֑וֹת וַיִּשְׁתּ֥וּ וַֽיִּשְׁכְּר֖וּ עִמּֽוֹ׃
Egli offrì loro di quel che aveva davanti, e l’offerta fatta a Binjamìn fu cinque volte maggiore di quelle fatte a ciascheduno di essi. Eglino bevettero e s’ubbriacarono appo lui.
Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer
If he got betrothed to her with less than the worth of a p'rutah, even if he sent her 'sivlonot'(explained as presents, for it is a term of burden and weight, and 'weight' can be found as a term for present, such as "and he carried presents" (Genesis 43, 34) afterwards, they do not suspect that he sent those 'sivlonot' for the purpose of betrothal. But if he got betrothed to her with less than the worth of a p'rutah, and afterwards he had intercourse with her, unspecified, in the presence of witnesses, she will need a divorce, since it is certain that he had intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. gloss: The same law applies with a child who got betrothed and then grew up with her. She will need a divorce, because he certainly had intercourse when he became grown up for the purpose of betrothal (TUR, section 43 and responsa of the ROSH, rule 35). And only in this [type] of case, because every person knows that the betrothal of a child or with less than the worth of a p'rutah is nothing, and so he had intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. But in a situation where there is room for a mistake, a new betrothal is needed (Responsa Maimoni, end of Nashim), as it is explained in this section, article 4:
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy