Q&A: Stages of Annulment of a Marriage by Invalidating the Witnesses
Stages of Annulment of a Marriage by Invalidating the Witnesses
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
Is the process of annulling a marriage by invalidating a marriage witness made up of two stages:
A. Invalidating the marriage witness
B. Annulling the marriage
That is, in stage A the litigant is only the witness, so that the woman and the man are not the litigants but merely interested parties. Therefore it is their right to be part of the proceeding, but not their obligation.
In practice, in any proceeding in Choshen Mishpat / Yoreh De’ah, the sides are the litigants and the public is an interested party (since prohibitions and/or permissions apply to it as a result of the proceeding).
Is that correct?
Answer
Hello. I’m not sure I understood the question.
When a litigant testifies against a witness, this is the topic in Sanhedrin 23b: “he and another come to invalidate them.” There it is clear that a litigant who testifies about a witness is an interested party (and not a litigant), and when he testifies about the witness’s parents (for example, that they are slaves), there is a dispute among the tanna’im whether he is valid or not. Practically speaking, we rule like the Sages, that he is not. See Rashi there, that this is only when they testify about witnesses and not about judges. But in the Shulchan Arukh, section 13, paragraph 4, for some reason this is brought only regarding judges; see the commentaries there.
So the husband and wife are apparently interested parties and not litigants. But I didn’t understand what you wrote: “it is their right to be part of the proceeding but not their obligation.” What does that mean?
It seems to me that the public is never considered an interested party, because otherwise judges could not judge criminals or rule in matters of personal status. Particular people from the public are interested parties (see Bava Batra 43b about a Torah scroll that was stolen from the city, and more).
Discussion on Answer
For Torah-level transgressions, he is disqualified retroactively (except for a conspiring witness, regarding whom Abaye and Rava disagree in chapter 3 of Sanhedrin whether he is disqualified retroactively or only from that point onward). As for rabbinic disqualifications, a formal public declaration is also required, and therefore he is disqualified only from the time it was ruled and declared.
In order for a witness to be disqualified from testimony, does that require a religious court ruling? If so, can the court still disqualify him retroactively and not only from the time of the ruling onward?