Q&A: Do the witnesses to a wedding need to see the giving of the ring?
Do the witnesses to a wedding need to see the giving of the ring?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
A few years ago I was a witness at a friend’s wedding, and I remember that I did not see the moment the ring was given, because the photographer and other people who were under the wedding canopy came closer and blocked my view of the giving of the ring. I saw the Rema that you cited in the halakhic ruling for annulling the betrothal:
The witnesses must actually see the giving into her hand or into her domain. But if they did not actually see the giving into her hand, even
though they heard him say, “Be betrothed to me with this object,” and afterward it emerged from under her hand, this is not a betrothal unless they actually see
the giving itself (Responsa of the Rashba, sec. 780). And in this matter we do not rely on estimations and indications.
In your opinion, should there be concern that the betrothal took effect, or should the couple betroth again out of doubt?
Best regards,
Answer
I think not, because there are several doubts here. The other people saw it, and even if they were not formally designated as witnesses, there are opinions in Jewish law that they are still considered witnesses.
Beyond that, the Ran explains the Rif’s view that he does not require witnesses to delivery for a divorce if there were signing witnesses on the get, and he explains that the very fact that the get emerged from the woman’s possession after the husband wrote it testifies that it was delivered to her, so we effectively have conclusive circumstantial testimony of the divorce. The situation here is no worse than that.
And there is more room to analyze this, but this is not the place.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand. What difference does it make that it is to the woman’s disadvantage?
Seemingly, one could distinguish this from betrothal, because a get is to the woman’s disadvantage.