הקשה המנ"ח למ"ד דבין בזמנו ובין אין בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו וכי נאמר דלשיטתו אין מצות קידוש ע"פ ראיה? אלא מוכח דיש שני מצות שונות, קידוש ע"פ ראיה ואמירת מקודש בב"ד. ולפ"ז מקשה מדוע אין דין קידוש ע"פ ראיה ביום ל"א? ומדוע הרמב"ם אומר שעושין סעודת העיבור מיד? ובמיוחד קשה במקרים שאף ע"פ החשבון צריך שהמולד יהיה ביום ל"א ואכן יש עדים על זה. ומחמת חומר הקושיא מחדש שכיון שידוע לכל שהיום יראה הלבנה ויהיה ר"ח הוי כעין שיש עדים לזה. ובדומה מצינן עכ"פ שיטות שסוברות בנישואין אזרחיים כשאיש ואשה דרים ביחד יש להם דין של נישואין וצריכים גט דאנן סהדי וכאילו אנן העידי ביאה. וזהו חידוש עצום והמנ"ח נשאר בצע"ג. וע"ע במנחת שלמה ח"ג סימן ק'.
וחכם אחד פעם שאל אותי מדוע הרמב"ם מביא שלפני מתן תורה אדם פגע באשה בשוק וכו' וכך נישאו, ומאי נפ"מ לדידן, אך לדברי הנ"ל נראה שגם לנו שייך נישואין באופן כזה מדין אנן סהדי. וזכור לי שהחת"ס ג"כ פסק הלכה למעשה בעובדה שנמצא שא' מהעדים היה קרוב.
3 comments:
very interesting post.
regarding the issue of witnesses seeing a man and woman live together and whether that constitutes eidus kiddushin, is really dependent on whether we assume that a person won't be bo'el b'ilas zenus. See shulchan aruch (even ha'ezer 149) - it is clear that in a situation where we say the chazaka of ein adam oseh b'ilaso bi'ilas zenus (i.e. a divorced couple), then if the witnesses see them having relations she is b'chezkas mekudeshes from the bi'ah; but if they only see yichud it is a safek. However, by a women who one was never properly (Jewishly) married to, there is no chazaka, and therefore even if witnesses saw them together it is assumed to be just bias zenus - as r' moshe paskens.
however, you are right that if 2 people live together in a town for more than 30 days as a married couple, that qualifies as eidus that they are married (Rambam Issurei Biah 1:20,21). But, for that you don't need real eidus, rather the chazakah establishes the relationship as fact. This is explained by Rambam (sanhedrin 16:6) that you only need eidus on the act of issur, but an eid echad (or chazaka) can establish the cheftzah to be a cheftzah shel issur.
In light of this, i don't think that the issue of weddings is connected to eidim by kiddush hachodesh. The chiddush of the minchas chinuch is that even without eidim seeing anything, the anan sahadi is sufficient to not only be a proof of fact, but to qualify as actual eidus and can be considered mekadesh through r'iya. but in the case of the kiddushin, the eidim on yichud are considered eidei bi'ah based on anan sahadi(see rashi gittin 81b d.h. hain hain). Therefore, the witnesses see everything that they need to, to make the kiddushin chal (at least m'safek). The anan sahadi just makes the eidus on yichud work for kiddushin, but it doesn't work as actual eidus.
reb avi,
i don't know much about this, i think the michas chinuch himself makes the connection to kidushin. also, there is no witnesses of yichud per say here, still there is kidushin "happening" which can only be done with eidim.
the caese of the chasam sofer was, where a rabbi was mesader kidushin and used his gabai as an wittnes. later the eid told him that he was a karuv, the rabbi was embarrassed so he asked the chasam sofer what to do, after telling him he shouldnt be embarrassed he paskened that the kidushim are good because everyone saw them getting married and that is good enough.... (i heard this on a tape)
if that is the case of the chasam sofer then there is really no comparison. in that case everyone present was a valid witness, even if the actual eid kiddushin wasn't. but in the case of the minchas chinuch there are no witnesses at all. my point was that even if the witnesses are relying an an umdana for their testimony to mean something, the bottom line is that there are witnesses, to the exclusion of the case of the minchas chinuch where there is just umdana and know witnesses. unless the minchas chinuch means that the witnesses will actually be testifying based on the umdana. if that is what he means then you are right, it is similar to any situation where the eidim are entitled to rely on valid umdana's and chazaka's to give their testimony.
Post a Comment