Last week on Monday a newly-wed couple tied the knot in Bnei Brak, bringing another happy family into the larger family of Bnei Yisroel. Except, it was discovered on Friday night during their Sheva Brachos that there seemed to be a problem with one of the rings.
After Sheva Brachos concluded on Friday night, the bride told her sister that the ring which she was wearing was not the one which was originally ordered by the couple and that there was some sort of issue with the order.
The story hit the couple and their families very hard. They inquired with rabbinical authorities with regards to how to proceed. Was this a case of a mistaken marriage since the bride did not intend to wed over this specific ring? An additional problem came from the side of the Chosson. Since he did not intend to wed his bride with this ring, but rather a different ring, did he not have in mind to wed her at all, thus making this a case of Mekach Ta’us – mistaken procurement and hence the bride was not his at all?
One of the more prominent scholars in the city, declared that the couple should not be secluded on Friday night, since there is a doubt that they were still not married and it would be prohibited for them to be alone together.
Yet another problem arose, that the planned Sheva Brachos for Shabbos had to be canceled since there was effectively no bride and groom. The Torah Sage then utilized a legal decision issued by the Ram”a that states that one can get married on Shabbos if the situation deemed it necessary. So the couple got remarried on Shabbos morning at the Rabbi’s house with a small gathered crowd. The groom utilized the same ring that the bride had received at the original ceremony and the Kiddushin was legalized and people rejoiced.
The story raised a number of question among the poskim, as the case was a very rare and unexpected case of a marriage taking place on Shabbos.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
16 Responses
” . . . a problem with ONE of the rings. . .”
A double ring ceremony, or a typo?
” . . . Yet another problem arose, that the planned Sheva Brachos for Shabbos had to be canceled since there was effectively no bride and groom. . .”
So for that, you rely on a sha’as ha’dchak?
Something is missing here,did the bride receive a ring under the chupah that was worth a SHAVA PERUTA. if yes then what’s the problem,even though it was a different ring than the one she thought it would be,it’s still not a problem because had we told her at the chupa that its a different
one she would have definitely agreed to get married with this ring
CHAIM
what happened to the other two kinyanim that WERE used?
“Since he did not intend to wed his bride with this ring, but rather a different ring, did he not have in mind to wed her at all”, why should that be a worry? Why are we Choshesh that he had not wanted to marry her after all? Also why didnt the Mesader Kiddushin ask if the ring was his as is always done.
Story seems a bit weird to me.
Something is amiss here:
a) Isn’t that precisely the reason why you don’t give a “diamond” ring. just a simple marriage band ring…
b) Based on the minhag Rem”a to ask the witnesses that “its a Shuva Prutah” to indicate that its only the Prutah that matters..
Here is the Shu”a :
שולחן ערוך · אבן העזר · סימן לא
יש אומרים שאם קדשה בדבר שאין בקיאין בשומתן ופעמים טועים בהם הרבה, כגון אבנים טובות ומרגליות וכיוצא בהם, ואמר לה: התקדשי לי באבן זו ששוה חמשים זוז, צריך שומא, דלא סמכה דעתה. ויש מי שאומר, שאפילו קדשה באבן סתם, ולא אמר לה ששוה חמשים זוז, צריכה שומא, ולכך נהגו לקדש בטבעת שאין בה אבן.
הגה: ואם קדשה בטבעת שיש בו אבן, או בסתם טבעת, ונמצא של נחושת, אף על פי שאין דרך לקדש בכך, חיישינן לקדושין (בית יוסף בשם תשובת הר”ש בר צמח ומרדכי פרק קמא דקדושין). ואפילו אמרו העדים תחת החופה שהוא של זהב, ונמצא נחושת, אף על גב דלענין דינא נראה דלא הוי מקודשת, אפילו הכי יש להחמיר לענין מעשה (תשובת מימוני סוף הלכות נשים)
–> ומכל מקום נוהגין תחת החופה לשאול לעדים אם הטבעת שוה פרוטה, כדי שתדע הכלה שאין מקדשה רק בשוה פרוטה (ארחות חיים <—
Well, I heard one say:
“There are THREE rings involved with marriage.
The engagement ring, the wedding ring, and the suffering.”
“the case was a very rare and unexpected case of a marriage taking place on Shabbos”
Or not, since they probably were really married all along, and this was just a chumrah.
Mi kamocha yisroel…….can you imagine how many pins whose heads were danced upon to come up with the shita that maybe, perhaps neither really intended to do what they did and even if they did intend to do what they did, that may itself not be the basis to conclude they didn’t.
What a weird story.
The story mentions Rabbinical Authorities, Torah Sages and Scholars. but no Morah D’Asra. Doesnt Bnei Brak have a Morah D’asra to whom these type of questions can be brought to to render a psak, and not have to get a lot of seemingly drei kups involved. This doesnt seem to have happened. Who is the Morah D’Asra of Bnei Brak and why wasnt he asked. Can someone help me here?
this is why every rabbi here in canada show the ring to the kallah under the hoopa and ask her to confirm if this is her ring
dose she get a divorce if so if her groom is a cohn so he can not marrried to her she is a divorcee
“An additional problem came from the side of the Chosson. Since he did not intend to wed his bride with this ring, but rather a different ring”
IMHO, I think this is more of the problem as apposed to the Bride not knowing as the above Rema. This might be an issue with the very Kinyan of the ring as it can legally be returned to the seller.
I think we should note which commenters think they know better than the poskim of
Bnei Brak, and which use derogatory language regarding their halachic deliberations.
Honestly, it doesn’t give the name of the bnei brak rav who paskened this shailoh, however the story makes no sense at all.
First of all, the kidushin seem to be completely fine. Mitzad the choson (koineh) there’s no shailoh, see שאלות ותשובות הרא”ש כלל צו אות ו, שו”ע חו”מ סימן רלג.
Mitzad the kallah there seems to be no shailoh at all, see חלקת מחוקק סימן לא ס”ק ח.
And if they really had a shailoh, see shulchan aruch horav 339:5 (also mishna berura) there that it shouldn’t be done. See also piskei teshuvos siman 339 footnote 62.
In summary, the story makes no halachic sense. Just my two cents
“Doesn”t Bnei Brak have a Morah D’asra to whom these type of questions can be brought to to render a psak, and not have to get a lot of seemingly drei kups involved”
The fact that no Rav, Posek or Morah D’asra wished to have his name publicly associated with this convoluted tale that may be more appropriately titled “Chumrahs from Chelm” should itself tell you that either (i) some key facts were omitted from the article or (ii) this was a rehearsal for a Purim spiel that spun out of control. Should we inquire what happens if the Kallah has a baby in 8 months and 29 days from the chassanah.??
I have no idea about the halachot, but didn’t the chosson – or his mother – look at the rings before the chuppah? I know I did before my sons got married & they looked them over too. This is the craziest thing I have ever heard (it beats the brit I attended where the father – Chassidish Ashkenazi- gave the baby HIS (living) father’s name by mistake. The Rav paskened it was too late.)