How can there be only two Halachic witnesses at a large wedding?












5















By what power or logic can the mesader kiddushin saying that two specific, designated people are the only witnesses to a wedding change the fact that all assembled have seen all that transpired at the wedding ceremony (i.e., witnessed the ceremony)?



This exclusion of witnesses is described on this site which says,

"Confirming the Witnesses

The mesader kidushin asks the witnesses if they are related to either the bride or groom or each other. He then asks the bride and groom if they want these and only these witnesses to be their witnesses."










share|improve this question





























    5















    By what power or logic can the mesader kiddushin saying that two specific, designated people are the only witnesses to a wedding change the fact that all assembled have seen all that transpired at the wedding ceremony (i.e., witnessed the ceremony)?



    This exclusion of witnesses is described on this site which says,

    "Confirming the Witnesses

    The mesader kidushin asks the witnesses if they are related to either the bride or groom or each other. He then asks the bride and groom if they want these and only these witnesses to be their witnesses."










    share|improve this question



























      5












      5








      5








      By what power or logic can the mesader kiddushin saying that two specific, designated people are the only witnesses to a wedding change the fact that all assembled have seen all that transpired at the wedding ceremony (i.e., witnessed the ceremony)?



      This exclusion of witnesses is described on this site which says,

      "Confirming the Witnesses

      The mesader kidushin asks the witnesses if they are related to either the bride or groom or each other. He then asks the bride and groom if they want these and only these witnesses to be their witnesses."










      share|improve this question
















      By what power or logic can the mesader kiddushin saying that two specific, designated people are the only witnesses to a wedding change the fact that all assembled have seen all that transpired at the wedding ceremony (i.e., witnessed the ceremony)?



      This exclusion of witnesses is described on this site which says,

      "Confirming the Witnesses

      The mesader kidushin asks the witnesses if they are related to either the bride or groom or each other. He then asks the bride and groom if they want these and only these witnesses to be their witnesses."







      halacha wedding edim-witnesses kiddushin-eirusin






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago









      Al Berko

      4,588526




      4,588526










      asked 9 hours ago









      Yehuda WYehuda W

      2,537623




      2,537623






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          There are two issues at play here.



          1) Who actually saw the event.



          2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law.



          Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses.



          However, the mesader kiddushin is asking the bride and groom to choose a limited group (2) of people to join the secret club called the "kaht" of witnesses to the kidushin act.



          There is no power or logic to exclude the people there from the general group called "witnesses".



          However, before the event takes place, there is power to create a special group of witnesses that exist as a privately locked group of 2 members by themselves; without joining the rest of the room's group.



          So now we have two groups of witnesses.



          A) 98 guests who were standing around and saw the event.



          B) 2 guests that also saw the event but were designated as a private group of witnesses.



          Now those two may go to court and give testimony without belonging to the other group of 98. That's the power of designation.



          This prevents a large random group from forming and showing up to court, when they contain possible relatives. This would then invalidate the entire group as Halachah demands that a group of witnesses are either kosher or not kosher as a group.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

            – DonielF
            6 hours ago



















          11














          The Ritva in Kiddushin 43 brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group).




          מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים צדיך לייחד עידי
          הקידושין דאי לא כיון דאיכא עד פסול ביניהם עדות כלם בטלה




          The questioner seems to have understood that by designating witnesses, you invalidate all the other witnesses. I believe this is incorrect; nobody can stop witnesses from seeing. The Ritva means that by designating specific witnesses, they are no longer automatically part of the same 'group', and therefore the invalid witnesses cannot invalidate the kosher witnesses.



          [Accordingly, another two kosher witnesses may separate themselves from the rest of the participants, and designate themselves as another 'group'; they would also be Kosher witnesses. If something then invalidates the two witnesses who were chosen by the Mesader Kiddushin/Chosson, these two would still act as valid witnesses.]






          share|improve this answer


























          • my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

            – David Kenner
            7 hours ago



















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          There are two issues at play here.



          1) Who actually saw the event.



          2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law.



          Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses.



          However, the mesader kiddushin is asking the bride and groom to choose a limited group (2) of people to join the secret club called the "kaht" of witnesses to the kidushin act.



          There is no power or logic to exclude the people there from the general group called "witnesses".



          However, before the event takes place, there is power to create a special group of witnesses that exist as a privately locked group of 2 members by themselves; without joining the rest of the room's group.



          So now we have two groups of witnesses.



          A) 98 guests who were standing around and saw the event.



          B) 2 guests that also saw the event but were designated as a private group of witnesses.



          Now those two may go to court and give testimony without belonging to the other group of 98. That's the power of designation.



          This prevents a large random group from forming and showing up to court, when they contain possible relatives. This would then invalidate the entire group as Halachah demands that a group of witnesses are either kosher or not kosher as a group.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

            – DonielF
            6 hours ago
















          3














          There are two issues at play here.



          1) Who actually saw the event.



          2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law.



          Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses.



          However, the mesader kiddushin is asking the bride and groom to choose a limited group (2) of people to join the secret club called the "kaht" of witnesses to the kidushin act.



          There is no power or logic to exclude the people there from the general group called "witnesses".



          However, before the event takes place, there is power to create a special group of witnesses that exist as a privately locked group of 2 members by themselves; without joining the rest of the room's group.



          So now we have two groups of witnesses.



          A) 98 guests who were standing around and saw the event.



          B) 2 guests that also saw the event but were designated as a private group of witnesses.



          Now those two may go to court and give testimony without belonging to the other group of 98. That's the power of designation.



          This prevents a large random group from forming and showing up to court, when they contain possible relatives. This would then invalidate the entire group as Halachah demands that a group of witnesses are either kosher or not kosher as a group.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

            – DonielF
            6 hours ago














          3












          3








          3







          There are two issues at play here.



          1) Who actually saw the event.



          2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law.



          Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses.



          However, the mesader kiddushin is asking the bride and groom to choose a limited group (2) of people to join the secret club called the "kaht" of witnesses to the kidushin act.



          There is no power or logic to exclude the people there from the general group called "witnesses".



          However, before the event takes place, there is power to create a special group of witnesses that exist as a privately locked group of 2 members by themselves; without joining the rest of the room's group.



          So now we have two groups of witnesses.



          A) 98 guests who were standing around and saw the event.



          B) 2 guests that also saw the event but were designated as a private group of witnesses.



          Now those two may go to court and give testimony without belonging to the other group of 98. That's the power of designation.



          This prevents a large random group from forming and showing up to court, when they contain possible relatives. This would then invalidate the entire group as Halachah demands that a group of witnesses are either kosher or not kosher as a group.






          share|improve this answer













          There are two issues at play here.



          1) Who actually saw the event.



          2) Who are the members of the "official group" ("Kaht") of witnesses that not only saw the event, but also serve as a specific group capable of authenticating the event for a Court of Law.



          Everyone present probably saw the event. They are all witnesses.



          However, the mesader kiddushin is asking the bride and groom to choose a limited group (2) of people to join the secret club called the "kaht" of witnesses to the kidushin act.



          There is no power or logic to exclude the people there from the general group called "witnesses".



          However, before the event takes place, there is power to create a special group of witnesses that exist as a privately locked group of 2 members by themselves; without joining the rest of the room's group.



          So now we have two groups of witnesses.



          A) 98 guests who were standing around and saw the event.



          B) 2 guests that also saw the event but were designated as a private group of witnesses.



          Now those two may go to court and give testimony without belonging to the other group of 98. That's the power of designation.



          This prevents a large random group from forming and showing up to court, when they contain possible relatives. This would then invalidate the entire group as Halachah demands that a group of witnesses are either kosher or not kosher as a group.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 7 hours ago









          David KennerDavid Kenner

          8,103826




          8,103826








          • 1





            While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

            – DonielF
            6 hours ago














          • 1





            While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

            – DonielF
            6 hours ago








          1




          1





          While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

          – DonielF
          6 hours ago





          While this is all correct, do you happen to know where these halachos are discussed?

          – DonielF
          6 hours ago











          11














          The Ritva in Kiddushin 43 brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group).




          מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים צדיך לייחד עידי
          הקידושין דאי לא כיון דאיכא עד פסול ביניהם עדות כלם בטלה




          The questioner seems to have understood that by designating witnesses, you invalidate all the other witnesses. I believe this is incorrect; nobody can stop witnesses from seeing. The Ritva means that by designating specific witnesses, they are no longer automatically part of the same 'group', and therefore the invalid witnesses cannot invalidate the kosher witnesses.



          [Accordingly, another two kosher witnesses may separate themselves from the rest of the participants, and designate themselves as another 'group'; they would also be Kosher witnesses. If something then invalidates the two witnesses who were chosen by the Mesader Kiddushin/Chosson, these two would still act as valid witnesses.]






          share|improve this answer


























          • my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

            – David Kenner
            7 hours ago
















          11














          The Ritva in Kiddushin 43 brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group).




          מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים צדיך לייחד עידי
          הקידושין דאי לא כיון דאיכא עד פסול ביניהם עדות כלם בטלה




          The questioner seems to have understood that by designating witnesses, you invalidate all the other witnesses. I believe this is incorrect; nobody can stop witnesses from seeing. The Ritva means that by designating specific witnesses, they are no longer automatically part of the same 'group', and therefore the invalid witnesses cannot invalidate the kosher witnesses.



          [Accordingly, another two kosher witnesses may separate themselves from the rest of the participants, and designate themselves as another 'group'; they would also be Kosher witnesses. If something then invalidates the two witnesses who were chosen by the Mesader Kiddushin/Chosson, these two would still act as valid witnesses.]






          share|improve this answer


























          • my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

            – David Kenner
            7 hours ago














          11












          11








          11







          The Ritva in Kiddushin 43 brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group).




          מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים צדיך לייחד עידי
          הקידושין דאי לא כיון דאיכא עד פסול ביניהם עדות כלם בטלה




          The questioner seems to have understood that by designating witnesses, you invalidate all the other witnesses. I believe this is incorrect; nobody can stop witnesses from seeing. The Ritva means that by designating specific witnesses, they are no longer automatically part of the same 'group', and therefore the invalid witnesses cannot invalidate the kosher witnesses.



          [Accordingly, another two kosher witnesses may separate themselves from the rest of the participants, and designate themselves as another 'group'; they would also be Kosher witnesses. If something then invalidates the two witnesses who were chosen by the Mesader Kiddushin/Chosson, these two would still act as valid witnesses.]






          share|improve this answer















          The Ritva in Kiddushin 43 brings the custom of designating specific witnesses at a ceremony where there are invalid witnesses present, to get around the problem of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה (the dictum that any single witness from a group of witnesses who is found invalid invalidates the entire group).




          מיהו כל היכא שיש באותו מעמד כשרים ופסולים או קרובים צדיך לייחד עידי
          הקידושין דאי לא כיון דאיכא עד פסול ביניהם עדות כלם בטלה




          The questioner seems to have understood that by designating witnesses, you invalidate all the other witnesses. I believe this is incorrect; nobody can stop witnesses from seeing. The Ritva means that by designating specific witnesses, they are no longer automatically part of the same 'group', and therefore the invalid witnesses cannot invalidate the kosher witnesses.



          [Accordingly, another two kosher witnesses may separate themselves from the rest of the participants, and designate themselves as another 'group'; they would also be Kosher witnesses. If something then invalidates the two witnesses who were chosen by the Mesader Kiddushin/Chosson, these two would still act as valid witnesses.]







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 6 hours ago

























          answered 7 hours ago









          chortkov2chortkov2

          76417




          76417













          • my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

            – David Kenner
            7 hours ago



















          • my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

            – David Kenner
            7 hours ago

















          my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

          – David Kenner
          7 hours ago





          my answer is essentially the same as yours. But you beat me to it :)

          – David Kenner
          7 hours ago



          Popular posts from this blog

          Wolfgang Unzicker

          Unua mondmilito

          Schloss Hohenburg (Lenggries)