MiriamSteinvs.

SivanStone
(2015/111)

SYNOPSIS:
Thecasedealswithaweddingceremonywheretherewerenoqualifiedwitnessespresenttotestifytothe
Kiddushin.

FACTSOFTHECASE:
OnJune20,1983,MiriamSteinmarriedSilvanStone.The
kiddushin(
halakhicbetrothal)wasfinalizedwhenthe
hatan
,(thegroom)placedaringonthe
kallahs,
(thebrides)indexfingerofthebridesrighthandwhile
pronouncing
hareiatmekuuddeshetlibetabaatzo,kedatMosheveYisrael
.Baseduponviewingthevideoof
the
kiddushin
ceremonywhichoccurredunderthe
hupah
,thefollowingindividualswereunderthe
hupah
:the
hatan
and
kallah
,the
hatan
smotherandsister,the
kallahs
father,mother,brothersandsister.Exceptforthese
relativeswhowerepresentatthetimeofthegivingofthering,theonlyothernonrelativepresentwastheRabbi,
whowas
mesadair

kiddushin
,overseeingthattheproceedingwouldbeconductedinaccordancewithTorahlaw.
ManyyearslateronDecember20,2010,Miriamrequesteda
get
atRabbiTurks
beitdin
andinAugust2014a
civildivorcewasexecuted.Howevertothisdate,Sivanhasrefusedtogivehera
get
.
DISCUSSION:
A
sinaquanon
tocreatethe
maasehkiddushin
,theactofhalakhicbetrothalisthepresenceoftwoadultJewish
1
maleswhoarequalified(i.e.unrelatedtothe
hatan
and
kallah)
andTorahobservant
andwilltestifythatthe
hatan
gavearingtothe
kallah
.Ifneeded,thesetwo
eidim
,witnessesmaybecalledupontoserveas
edeireayah
to
confirmina
beitdin
thatinfacttheexecutionof
kiddushin
wasdoneinpursuancetothedictatesofhalakhic
2
marriagelaw.
Moreover,thesetwoindividualsserveas
eideikiyum
whobydintoftheirpresenceandparticipation
underthe
hupah
impartvaliditytotheactofthe
kiddushin
.Whereas,the
mesadairkiddushin
servesasthe
mashgiach
,thesupervisor,thetwowitnessesareanintegralpartinestablishingthe
kiddushin.
Intheirabsenceor
3
iftheyarepresentbuttheyareineligibletotestifytheactof
kiddushinc
annotbecreated.
Shulhan Aruch, Even Haezer 42:2,5
Kiddushin 65b; Teshuvot Hatam Sofer Even Haezer 1 (100)
3
Kiddushin 65a-b; Shulhan Aruch, Even Haezer 42:2; Rema, Even Haezer 42:4; Iggerot Moshe 1:82; Piskei Din Rabbanayim 1:19-22, 10:175,
180-182; 13: 303, 310.
1
2

Evenintheabsenceoftwowitnessesorinthepresenceoftwodisqualifiedwitnesses,thereistheHatamSofers
viewthatTorahcommittedJewswhoobservedthe
kiddushin
ceremonyyetdidnotseetheactual
mesirah
,the
givingoftheringbythe
hatan
tothe
kallahm
ayserveas
anansahadei
,wearethewitnessesforthe
kiddushin.

AndeventhepresenceofnonobservantTorahJewsasonlookersofthe
kiddushin
ceremonywillnotinvalidatethe
4
testimonyoftheotherTorahobservantJewswhoareonlookersthere. Giventhatatthiswedding,theguestsat
theceremonywerebothTorahobservantandnonobservantJews,seeminglywemayrelyuponHatamSofers
positionthattheactof
kiddushin
hasbeenestablished.
5

Nonetheless,many
poskim
,authoritiesofhalakhahrejectthisapproach.
Amongthe
poskim
incontemporary
times,whoalignedhimselfwiththisviewisRabbiTzionBoyaronwhopresentlyservesasa
dayan
ontheBetDin
6
haGadol. Moreover,invoking
anansahadei
,ispredicateduponthefactthatthe
mesadairkiddushin
is
Torahobservantingeneralandproficientinthehalakhotof
sederkiddushin
venissuin

(theengagementand
7
marriageceremony)inparticular. Forexample,the
mesadairkiddushin
executedadoubleringceremonywhere
the
hatan
gavearingtothe
kallah
andrecitedtheprescribedhalakhictextfor
kiddushin,

hareiatmekudeshet
lee

veyisrael
andthe
kallah
gavearingtothe
hatan
andstated
aniledodivedodili
.Suchanexchangeof
8
ringsisagainsthalakha. Therefore,theabsenceoftwowitnessesandtheexecutionofadoubleringceremonyfor
kiddushin
inourcaseprecludeonefrominvoking
anansahadei
.
Despitethehalakhicshortcomingoftheabsenceoftwowitnesses,neverthelessmayoneinvoketheruleof
ein
adomosehbeilatobeilatzenut
,aJewdoesnotengageinsexualrelationsasanactoffornification?
Consequently,theactof
biah
,intercoursewouldconsummatethemarriage.Firstly,todaywedonotpractice
9
KiddusheiBiah.
ApplyingthisrulepresumesthatthecouplewerereligiouslycommittedtoaTorahwayoflife
10
includingcompliancewiththehalakhotoffamilypurityatthetimeofthemarriage.
Inourcase,thecoupledidnot
complywiththehalakhotoffamilypurity.Themerelivingtogetherasahusbandandwife
leshemishut
of
kiddushin
,tobeconsciousthatthebotharelivingtogethertotheexclusionofothersbaseduponahalakhic
11
imperativeratherthancohabitatingwitheachotherdevoidofhalakhicintentisthedesirandum.
Evenifthe
couplelivedforanextendedperiodoftimeinaTorahobservantcommunityandareknownatlargeasamarried
coupleandTorahobservant(includingpracticingthehalakhotoffamilypurity),nonethelesswewillnotconstrue
theircohabitationasaformof
kiddusheibiah
.SaidconclusionisinconsonancewithRabbiFeinsteinsviewwho
contendsthatpublicknowledgethatthemanandwomanarelivingtogetheraTorahlifestyleissufficienttodeem
themhalakhicallymarriedprovidedthattherearemembersofthecommunitywhoknowthattheyactuallymarried
12
inpursuancetohalkha.SeeIggerotMosheEH1:75.
Itisourunderstandingthatattheinceptionofmarriage,thecouplewerenonreligiousandthereforetheruleof
ein
adomosehbeilatobeilatzenut
cannotbeapplied.

Teshuvot Hatam Sofer Even ha-Ezer 1:100.

See Teshuvot Mishpetei Shmuel 20; Teshuvot Shem Aryeh 1:31; Teshuvot Tzit Eliezer 8:37 in the name of Maharil, Maharshach and Emunat
Shmuel; Teshuvot Ohr Lee 73b; Teshuvot Ein Yitzhak 2:64
6
Teshuvot Shaarei Tzion 2:11
7
Teshuvot Shem Aryeh 31; Iggerot Moshe Even ha-Ezer 1:76-77; Teshuvot Tzit Eliezer 8:37.
8
Iggerot Moshe EH 4:13 See also 3:25.
9
See Shaagat Aryeh, Addendum to the Sefer () cited by Tecshuvot Beit Ephraim EH 62.
10
Teshuvot ha-Rivash 6; Teshuvot Terumat ha-Deshen 209; Mishnah Lemelech, Gerushin 10:18; Teshuvot haRadvaz 1:351; Shulhan Aruch,
Even ha-Ezer 26:1, 33:1
11
Iggerot Moshe Even ha-Ezer 1: 74-77; Teshuvot Beit Avi 5:133.
12
And in our case, it is clear that the couple was not married in accordance with Halakha.
4
5

12


DECISION:
Giventheabsenceoftwowitnessesatthe
kiddushinw
hocantestifytoavalid
netinah,
thegivingofaringbythe
hatan
tothe
kallah
whilepronouncingaloudthe
amirah
(
hareiat
),theactof
kiddushinw
asnever
consummated.Therefore,MiriamSteinisfreetoremarrywithoutreceivinga
get
,evenaKohen.

Signed

RabbiSimchaKraussRabbiA.YehudaWarburgRabbiYosefBlau
AvBeitDinDayan

Dayan