By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

In Honor of the Wedding of the Author’s Son, Yehuda Leib Hoffman to Rachel Perlstein of Monsey

Allegedly, it was a real shailah that happened in Monsey (or its ever-growing surroundings). But it could have happened in Lakewood, Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak or any other Jewish community.  A Chosson was told that the wedding band he was purchasing was platinum.  Later, they found that the wedding band was actually white gold and not platinum.  Does the chuppah have to be re-done on account of mekach ta’us?

THE DIFFERENCES

The main difference between gold and platinum is color. Platinum is naturally white, gold is yellow. For a yellow ring, gold is best.  For a white ring, the choices are platinum or white gold. White gold is made of gold, allows and a rhodium plating.

They look similar, but the rhodium wears off over time. If you polish and re-plate it, it becomes white again.  Platinum is denser than gold. It is heavier and more pure.  It is also more expensive. Also, 14 karat gold is only 58.5% gold (18k is 75%, and pure gold is 24k). Platinum rings are generally 95% pure platinum.  Platinum is also more durable and more hypoallergenic.

THE HALACHIC QUESTIONS

There are actually three shailos here, believe it or not.

1. Would the Kallah have agreed to be married with the cheaper metal?
2. Did the wedding band truly belong to the husband? Since he was misled, it could be that the band did not truly belong to him, but rather to the jeweler that sold it to him because it was an erroneous sale.
3. Even if the husband would have thought that he would have kept it anyway, it could be that the wholesaler that sold it to the jeweler was the one who had misled the jeweler. If that is the case, the jeweler would likely have wanted to reverse the sale and then it actually belongs to the wholesaler – and not the jeweler, and not the husband. Is the couple then truly married?

A similar question is posed in Mishnas Yehoshua by Rabbi Yehoshua Chilo in Siman 56.  But let’s first look at each of the questions.

In the Monsey case, the bride probably received the ring under the Chuppah, and if she would have had an animadversion to this type of ring and did not say anything – it would be considered Dvarim Shebelaiv unspoken matters that are just in the heart and the marriage would be valid in regard to question #1.  The Gemorah in Kiddushin 49b rules in this matter regarding someone who sold off all of his assets because he planned to move to Eretz Yisroel.  The sale is still valid and considered final, even though his plans fell through.  [There are, however, some exceptions].

The Mordechai in Kiddushin Siman 488 discusses a case where a woman in her own mind thought that the ring was made of gold and it really was not.  He concludes that the woman is still married because of the principle of dvarim shebelaiv ainam dvarim.

DID IT BELONG TO THE HUSBAND?

The second issue is whether the husband owned the ring in the first place.  The Ramah in Choshain Mishpat 233:1 the laws of Onaah – discusses sales where one item is misrepresented as another item.  The underlying issues are complex.  The Ramah discusses a case involving pure silver versus silver with something else mixed in and writes that it is a valid sale since both items are silver. The Shach takes issue with the Ramah and rules the sale as invalid. Here the situation is worse because the items were entirely different.

THE WHOLE WORLD WILL TESTIFY THAT HE WANTS IT

However, we can make the assumption that the sale is still valid in our case. How so?  The husband has his eye on the end game. He wants to purchase a ring that he will use for the wedding. He does not want his wedding to be an invalid wedding and that the next few days not be considered a true wedding (ain odom oseh be’ilaso b’ilas znus).  Therefore, the whole world would testify that he wants this deal to go through regardless.  This is called an “anan sahadi” – where the whole world testifies, so to speak.  The Nesivus HaMishpat 227:1 rules that if it was used in a wedding, in a situation where the purchaser’s acquiescence to the deal was later after an error became known – it is a valid kiddushin. There is also a proof from Tosfos in Bava Metziah v’ilu that two differing types are equal to overcharging 17%.The Mishnas Yehoshuah’s argument here is quite cogent.

THE THIRD QUESTION

Regarding the third question, there is a responsum of Rabbi Akiva Eiger Vol. III #33 that addresses our issue directly. If the sale is rendered invalid then that party is taken out of the picture and the question is whether there is a sale between party number one and party number three.  Party number two just becomes a type of broker but is no longer part of the sale.  Since we have already explained that party number three (in this case the husband) definitely wants the sale to happen, we consider the ring having belonged to the wholesaler (not the jeweler) and that the husband has directly purchased it from him.

CONCLUSION

The Mishnas Yehoshua, based upon this Rabbi Akiva Eiger suggests in his case that the wedding is completely valid.  He writes that it may be proper, however, to repeat the giving of the ring in front of two witnesses after everything has been resolved from the wholesaler and retailer.  Others suggested that he have in mind the third method of kiddushin mentioned in the first Mishna in Kiddushin.  It seems to this author based upon the words of Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos that this is not necessary.

https://thechesedfund.com/zechornilah/weddingoftwobaaleiteshuva

The author can be reached at [email protected]