Ehrlichv.

Sheinman
(2015/105)
SYNOPSIS:
Ourcasedealswithwitnessesnotbeingdesignatedforkiddushinandpresentatthechupahwasonepossibly
TorahobservantadultJewishwitnesswhowasnotrelatetothegroomandbride.
FACTSOFTHECASE:
OnOctober22,2014,theaforementionedcasewassubmittedforresolutiontotheInternationalBeitDin.The
couplewasmarriedinMarch2008.UntilApril2012shelivedinthesamebedroomwithhimandsubsequently
movedoutofthehouseinJune2012.Acivildivorceandfinancialsettlementhavebeenexecutedinearly2014.
Asoftoday,Mr.SheinmanrefusestogiveMs.Ehrlichher
get
.
DISCUSSION:
WeneedtoinquirewhetherthereweretwoadultJewishTorahobservantmaleswhowerepresentunderthe
hupah
whowouldcorroboratethatthe
hatan
was
mekadesh,
halakhicallybetrothed,his
kallah
?Reviewingpictures
ofthe
hupah
ceremony,wefoundthatunderthe
hupah
weretheparentsofthe
hatan
and
kallah,
tworelatives
fromthe
kallahs
family,onerelativefromthehusbandsfamily,oneadultmaleJewwhowasunrelatedtoanybody
underthe
hupah
andanrabbiwho
wasmesaderkiddushin,
supervisedthehalakhicproprietyofthe
kiddushin,

halakhicengagementaswellas
nissuin
,halakhicmarriagewhichwasperformedunderthehupah.Wecontacted
the
mesaderkiddushin
andwewereinformedthatthe
kiddushin
wasperformedwithoutdesignating(
meyaheid)
thewitnesses.
Alltherelativespresentunderthe
hupah
were
bedargatkirvah,
intheclassofrelativeswhowouldinvalidatethem
toserveaswitnessesfortheactof
kiddushin.
Amongst,theindividualspresentunderthe
hupahd
uringthe
performanceofthe
kiddushin
wererelativesfromthemothersfamily.Notwithstandingmost
poskim
whorulethat
1
suchindividualsareinvalid
medoraita
(onabiblicallevel) inaccordancewithcertaininterpretationsofRambams
view,2 suchtestimonyistobeinvalidatedonlyonarabbiniclevel.3Nevertheless,evenifonerulesthatthe
individualsareinvalidatedaswitnessesonarabbiniclevel,nonetheless,RambamaswellasShulhanAruchand

Teshuvot ha-Rivash 14 in the name of Rav Hai, Rif, Ramban and Rashba; Hayyim Medini, Ohr Lee, 70(4) cites Divrei Ribost that geonic
olam disagreed with Rambam.
2
Mishnah Torah , Eduth 13:1.
3
Beit Yosef, Even ha-Ezer (hereafter: EH) 42 (end) in the name of Tashbetz, Shakh, Hoshen Mishpat 33

Remaconcludethata
get
isrequired
mesafek
,becauseoftheexistenceofdoubtthattheactof
kiddushin
may
4
5
havebeenvalid. Relativesduetomarriage(
keroveiishut)
arerabbinicallyinvalidatedaswitnesses.
However,theindividualswhowereinvalidatedaswitnessesonarabbiniclevelwerenottheonlyonespresentat
the
hupah
.Atthe
hupah
,therewerepresentindividualswhowereinvalid
medoraita.
Seemingly,theirpresence
invalidatesthetestimonyofthosewitnesseswhowereeligible
medoraita
basedupontheruleifanywitnessisa
relativeorinvalid,thetestimonyoftheothersisnull6.Thisruleisinapplicableifapartytothe
kiddushin
designatedonlycertaineligibleindividualstoserveaswitnessestotheexclusionofothers.Thepresenceof
ineligiblepersonsatthe
kiddushin
willnoteffecttheeligibilityofthedesignatedwitnesses.Inourcase,the
mesaderkiddushin
didnotdesignateanyindividualsaswitnesses.Seemingly,theabsenceofdesignation
invalidatesanyeligiblewitnesspresentunderthe
hupah
duringtheperformanceof
kiddushin.

Yet,thequestioniswhethertheactualpresenceofineligiblewitnesseswhohavenointentiontotestifytotheact
of
kiddushin
willinvalidateaneligiblewitness?Accordingtothemajorityof
poskim
theruleofifanywitnessisa
relativeorinvalid,thetestimonyoftheothersisnullisineffectonlyiftheineligiblewitnessintendedtobea
witnesstothe
kiddushin
.7Inourcase,itisclearthatthepresenceofthesepersonswasonlyforthepurposeof
beingonlookersratherthanservingaswitnesses.
However,thereexiststhepositionofRitvainthenameofhisteacherRaahwhichiscitedauthoritativelybyTzit
Eliezerandothersthatintheabsenceofdesignatingthewitnesses,iftherearepresentbotheligibleandineligible
witnessesthatthetestimonyisinvalid.8 Incontemporarytimes,RabbiTzionBoyaron,a
dayan
servingontheBeit
DinhaGadolinYerushalayimhasruledonnumerousoccasionsregardingtheproprietyofactsof
kiddushin,
in
9
accordancewithRitvasview.
Inourcase,therewasanadultJewishmalewhowasunrelatedtothecouplewhostoodunderthe
hupah.
We
wereunabletoascertainwhetherhewasaTorahobservantJewatthetimeoftheweddingceremony.Evenifhe
wasTorahobservant,inaccordancewithRitvaandothershistestimonyisinvalid.Nonetheless,the
mesader
10
kiddushin
mayserveasonewitness andinpursuancetoRemasviewwemustbeconcernedthatonecan
consummate
kiddushin
withthepresenceofonewitness.11Nonetheless,numerous
Rishonim
subscribeto
12
ShulhanAruchspositionthatonecannotexecutea
kiddushin
withonewitness. Moreover,Remarulesina
situationof
igun
(
get
recalcitrance)wemustbelenientandthereforeonewitnesswillnotestablishtheactof
kiddushin
.Finally,the
mesaderkiddushins
testimonymaybeinvalidinlightofRitvasposition.

DECISION:

Shulhan Aruch EH 42:5; Rema Hoshen Mishpat 33:2

Teshuvot Noda be-Yehuda, Mahadura Tanina EH 76 in the name of Mordehai.
6
Makkot 6a
7
So if the eligible witnesses intended to testify and the invalid witnesses did not intend to testify, the testimony of two eligible witnesses is
valid. See Shakh Hoshen Mishpat 36:1; Ketzot ha-Hoshen 36:1.
8
Hiddushei ha-Ritva Kiddushin 43a; Shakh 36:8 in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz and ha-Gahot Semak 183; Teshuvot Zichron Yehuda
81;Teshuvot Tzit Eliezer 8:37 in the name of Ritva and many uphold him.
9
Teshuvot Shaarei Tzion EH 2:9-11.
10
Teshuvot Binyan Tzion 157; Teshuvot Mahari Asad 40; Shag, Teshuvot Ohel Avraham 59
11
Rema EH 42:2
12
Bahag Kiddushin 46; Piskei ha-Rosh, Kiddushin 13; Mordehai Kiddushin 531-534; Teshuvot ha-Ran 30; Teshuvot ha-Rivash 266; Hiddushei
ha-Rashba Gittin 81b; Shulhan Aruch EH 42:2
5

Eventhoughmany
poskim
contendthatthereisa
mesorah,
traditionthatin
devarervah,
inmattersofsexualitywe
13
mustfactorintoconsiderationallthestrictviews, neverthelessinasituationof
igun
itisclearthatoneisnotto
rulestringently.14
Inlightofthefactthatsome
poskim
arguethatRitvasposturemaybeonlyutilizedasa
senif
(lit.anappendage)
becauseitisrejectedbyothersoraquestionablehalakhicviewandthereforemaybeonlyappendedtoother
halakhicargumentsinordertobuttressaspecificruling, 15weenumerateadditionaldoubtswhichsupporta
leniency:Firstly,possiblythehalakhahisinaccordancewithRifthatonewhoconsummates
kiddushin
with
rabbinicallyinvalidwitnesses,wearenotconcernedwithsuch
kiddushin.
Furthermore,possiblywefollowBeit
YosefandRabbiO.Yosefwhoarguethattestimonyofrelativesorthoserelatedbymarriageareinvalid
medoraita
16
andthereforethe
kiddushin
isnullandvoid,atleastafterthefact. Moreover,possiblythehalakhahisin
pursuancetoShulhanAruchandmany
poskim
thatwouldnotvalidatea
kiddushin
performedinthepresenceof
onewitness.AndifweacceptRemasdecisionandRabbiSpektorsrulingthatinasituationof
get
recalcitrance
theyagreethatthe
kiddushin
isinvalid,17inourcaseof
igun,
wemayinvokealenientviewofnullifying(
bitul)
the
kiddushin
.Finally,Mr.SheinmansclaimthatheisnonJewishraisesadoubtregardingthevalidityofthe
marriage.AsindeedRavDichovsky..verygravedoubts.
Basedupontheforegoing,inthelightofabsenceofwitnessdesignationattheweddingceremony,inaccordance
withRitvaandothersaswellasvariousdoubtsregardingtheeffectivenessofthe
kiddushin,
theactof
kiddushin
betweenMs.EhrlichandMr.Sheinmannevertranspired.Therefore,Ms.Ehrlichisfreetoremarrywithouta
get
.

Signed

RabbiSimchaKraussRabbiA.YehudaWarburgRabbiYosefBlau
AvBeitDinDayan

Dayan

13

Teshuvot Kiddushat Yom Tov 9; Aruch ha-Shulhan EH 42:2; Teshuvot Shaarei Rahamim Franco EH 19; Teshuvot Pnei Yitzhak 1:10,13
Teshuvot Simhat Yom Tov 12; Teshuvot Hayyim ve-Shalom 2:110; Teshuvot Yabia Omeir 7, EH 8(19)
15
Teshuvot Malbushei Yom Tov 2:5; Teshuvot Birkat Kohen 42; Teshuvot Ein Yitzhak EH 2:64; Teshuvot Maharsham 1:111
Fileno.
925071/1,BeairShevaRegionalBeitDn,March29,2009.
16
Beit Yosef, EH 422 (end); Teshuvot Yabia Omer 6, EH 10
17
Rema , supra n. 10; Ein Yitzhak, supra n. 14.
14