Parshas Vaera 5786 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
A Kesubah Discovered to Be Invalid Years Later: May the Couple Continue
Living Together?
Q: It sometimes occurs that a person examines his kesubah many years
after his marriage and discovers that his name was written with a clear error.
This raises a concern that perhaps the kesubah is invalid, based on what the
Shulchan Aruch rules (Even HaEzer 129:3) that if one altered his name or
her name, etc., the get is invalid. This same principle applies to a kesubah —
it is not a valid kesubah when the name is misspelled. Thus, it it emerges that
the kesubah was not written properly and that a new, halachically valid
kesubah must be written, and an additional question presents itself: May he
continue to live with his wife until a new kesubah is written? For the Shul-
chan Aruch (Even HaEzer 66:1) rules that if there is no kesubah, the couple
is forbidden to be alone together.
A: It appears to me that there is no basis whatsoever for this concern, in
light of what the Shulchan Aruch writes there (ibid.) in Even HaEzer, that if
witnesses testify about him and he formally obligates himself (through a kin-
yan) to pay her one hundred or two hundred zuz (the amounts for a kesubah),
this suffices. In our case at hand, there are witnesses to the chosson’s obliga-
tion, and therefore there is no concern according to the opinion of the Mecha-
ber. However, the Rema there argues and writes in the name of “yesh om-
rim—there are those who say” that one may rely on witnesses only in a press-
ing situation, and that as soon as one has the opportunity to write a kesubah,
he must do so. Certainly, one should not rely on witnesses lechatchilah. See
there.
The Chelkas Mechokek (s.k. 6) discusses this issue and concludes as
follows: “And I say that certainly one who is stringent will be blessed; how-
ever, when the chosson does not have movable property to designate as secu-
rity at the moment, he may rely on the Tur, the Maharik, and the Mordechai
in the name of the Semag. Regarding a minor prohibition such as this, it is not
fitting to be stringent and thereby nullify the mitzvah of piryah v’rivyah. Es-
pecially in our times, when one may not divorce a woman against her will,
and thus there is no concern that it will be ‘easy in his eyes’ to divorce her.”
This is also the ruling of Teshuvos Kaneh Bosem (4:99). Moreover, this
emerges explicitly from the words of the Rema (ibid., end of se’if 3), who
writes: “See below (siman 177:3) that in a place where one may not divorce
except with the woman’s consent, there is no need to write a kesubah. Thus,
in our times, in these lands where one may not divorce a woman against her
will due to the cheirem of Rabbeinu Gershom, etc., it would be possible to be
lenient with regard to writing a kesubah. However, this is not the custom, and
one should not change it.”
It is thus explicit from the words of the Rema that, strictly speaking, one
could have been lenient regarding the entire halachic requirement of a kallah
not living without a kesubah; it is only that the custom is otherwise, and one
should not deviate from it. Accordingly, we arrive at an additional halachic
novelty: if a chosson and kallah come to their home after the wedding and
discover that the kesubah has been lost, they should not postpone yichud or
the fulfillment of piryah v’rivyah because of this. Later Poskim add that
lechatchilah one should designate metaltilin for her as security. This does not
need to bey the full value of the kesubah, but it suffices to set aside the
amount of the ikar kesubah, which is two hundred zuz.
It emerges, then, that the entire room for concern is only based on the min-
hag. In the case under discussion, there is certainly no reason for concern
regarding what happened in the past. Nevertheless, some Poskim state that it
is proper for the husband to transfer ownership of a valuable object to his
wife corresponding to the value of the kesubah until a new kesubah is written,
and this is sufficient. However, even one who does not do so is permitted to
be alone with his wife until a new kesubah is written.
May a Woman Tear Keriah at the Kosel in a Restroom?
Q: I was asked by a woman who went to daven at the Kosel. She does not
reside in Eretz Yisrael and had not been there within the previous thirty days,
and she was therefore obligated to tear her garment in mourning over the
destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. For personal reasons, she did not feel
comfortable tearing her garment in the presence of others, and she therefore
searched for the closest available private place, which was a restroom. After-
wards, she was uncertain: since she was fulfilling a mitzvah of mourning over
the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, perhaps it is forbidden to perform the
tearing inside a restroom. Or perhaps this is not as severe as the performance
of other obligatory mitzvos, and especially in light of the view that our mod-
ern restrooms are considered more lenient in status. This matter requires anal-
ysis.
A: Initially, I was uncertain about this case, since one could argue in either
direction, as noted above. However, I clarified this with Mori V’Rabi, Maran
HaGaon Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlita, who ruled that it is forbidden to
perform the tearing inside a restroom, just as we are careful not to perform
any mitzvah in a restroom. He therefore ruled stringently in this matter.
(It is well known today that for a small fee one can purchase a shirt designat-
ed for this purpose outside the entrance to the Kosel.)
Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, I have heard that several Poskim ruled
leniently in such a case, providing that there is no alternative. I therefore wish
to clarify the ba- ses for leniency in such circumstances.
[Text continues verbatim through the end of the article.]
Several Common Questions Regarding the Preparation of Egg Salad
on Shabbos
Each Shabbos, many people prepare egg salad, and in the course of its
preparation a number of questions arise concerning the melachos of
Shabbos. We will mention some of them here.
The Prohibition of Muktzeh Regarding Eggshells After Peeling
Eggshells are classified as muktzeh machmas gufo. Therefore, when one
wishes to discard the shells after peeling the eggs, care must be taken not
to transgress the prohibition of muktzeh. Accordingly, one should peel
the eggs directly over the trash receptacle so that the shells fall straight
into it. Alternatively, one may prepare a plate upon which a piece of
bread is placed, so that afterward the plate may be moved on the basis of
a basis l’davar ha’asur u’l’davar ha’mutar, as explained by the Chasam
Sofer (in his glosses to siman 308 on the Magen Avraham §52).
Is There a Concern of Cooking When Adding Salt to Very Hot Eggs?
At times, eggs are cooked inside the cholent, and when they are removed
from the kli rishon they are extremely hot, comparable to food in a kli
rishon, and their status is that of a davar gush, which according to some
authorities has the capacity to cook. Therefore, some are of the opinion
that one must be careful not to mix uncooked salt into the eggs.
However, in Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim vol. IV, siman 74:5), it is written
that one may be lenient and add uncooked salt into the cholent, for ac-
cording to the strict halachah salt does not cook in a kli rishon. It is only
the Rema (siman 318:9), citing Tosafos, who writes that one who is strin-
gent will be blessed. Furthermore, with regard to a davar gush, the
poskim disagree as to whether it cooks at all, and the Rema maintains
that there is no prohibition of cooking with a davar gush. We do not ap-
ply two stringencies simultaneously. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, of
blessed memory, was likewise lenient (as cited in Shemiras Shabbos
Kehilchasah, ch. 1, note 173), for additional reasons. Therefore, it ap-
pears that there is no need to be concerned about the prohibition of cook-
ing in this case—especially since in our times salt is generally fully
cooked during its processing. Even if it were not cooked, it is at least
baked, and not only is there no concept of baking after baking, but there
is also no need to be concerned about cooking after baking when one
combines the opinions that salt does not cook and that a davar gush is not
treated as a kli rishon.