Shidduchim
[א] (Halacha 413)
Concern on account of names [א]
Question: Is there a problem in a case where the bride's name is the same as her mother-in-law's name, or where the groom's name is the same as his father-in-law's name?
Answer: In the Gemara1 we find several Amoraim who were called by the same name as their fathers-in-law; however, Rabbi Yehuda HeChassid wrote in his Tzava'ah2: 'One should not marry a woman whose name is like his mother's name, or whose name is like his father-in-law's name. And if he married, he should change one of the names — perhaps there is hope.'
On the other hand, in his work Sefer Chassidim3 he wrote: 'A man who took a wife named Rivka or another name, and his son took a wife named Rivka, and his grandson took a wife named Rivka — they will not succeed; you will find that she will not succeed, for she is "threefold" or he is "threefold," for the wife, the daughter, and the granddaughter took three [such] names — hence he will not succeed.'4.
And in the writings of the Mekubbalim we find in Mishnas Chassidim5, who wrote: 'One should be careful that her name not be like his mother's name, for it is not good for him, but rather he should marry a woman fitting for him ..'.
In practice, some of the poskim wrote that there is no need to be concerned about this; some wrote that the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid applies only to his descendants; some wrote that it is a doubt whether it applies to everyone; and some distinguished between identical names of a bride and her mother-in-law, and [those of] a groom and his father-in-law. As follows.
Those who permit6 wrote that the main [ruling] is like his words in Sefer HaChassidim, that this concern applies only to 'meshulashin' — that is, where there are three generations in which the same name occurs.
Some wrote that his words in the Tzava'ah apply only to his descendants, as the responsa Noda BiYehuda7 wrote: '.. but the truth shows its way, that the Chassid commanded [this] for his own descendants after him, for generations, for he saw through ruach hakodesh that his offspring would not succeed in such matches; and in this he does not contradict the words of the Talmud8, which speak of the general rule, while the words of the Chassid concern the particular [family].'
Some wrote that although his Tzava'ah applies [only] to his descendants, one should be stringent regarding a bride and her mother-in-law [but not regarding a groom and his father-in-law], in accordance with the words of the aforementioned Mishnas Chassidim; and similarly the aforementioned Divrei Chaim9 also wrote: 'And this matter is set forth as a stringency also in Sefer Mishnas Chassidim; and regarding the remaining matters we are not particular in our country, and it also appears that his intent in this was only for his descendants, for the later Kabbalists such as the Mishnas Chassidim bring only [the case of] her name being like his mother's name — evidently, regarding the remaining matters it was only for his descendants, and therefore there is no concern whatsoever in this case at hand.'
Some wrote that it is a doubt whether his words in his Tzava'ah apply to everyone, and therefore one should follow the custom in this matter, as stated at the beginning of the aforementioned responsa Divrei Chaim10: 'But since in this matter it is a doubt whether he intended [it] for his descendants or not, in such a case it is said: "If a halacha is unsteady in your hand, go out and see how the public conducts itself" [see Yerushalmi Peah 7:5 and Maaser Sheni 5:2]; and behold, in our country they are particular only regarding a woman whose name is like her mother-in-law's name..'.
But some were stringent11, in accordance with the plain meaning of the words of the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid, and such is the opinion of our Rebbeim, that one must be particular even regarding a groom and his father-in-law — except that there is a more severe particularity regarding a bride and her mother-in-law, as the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek wrote12: 'However, my great-uncle, the Gaon Rabbi Yehuda Leib z"l, told me in the name of Rabbeinu HaGaon z"l [the Alter Rebbe] that he was especially particular about the matter that a bride's name not be like her mother-in-law's name (more than about his name being like his father-in-law's name), because this is stated in Mishnas Chassidim. And the Mishnas Chassidim copied only the words of the Arizal; therefore he presumably saw this in the Arizal, and for this reason he was especially particular about it, and he z"l said that it is a danger.'13.
Thus we have seen that there are several approaches among the poskim as to whether to be concerned when the bride's name is like her mother-in-law's name, and when the groom's name is like his father-in-law's name, and that the opinion of our Rebbeim is that one must be particular about this; in the next halacha it will be explained in which cases there is no concern.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 סוטה י, ב: 'אמר שמואל סבא חמוה דרב שמואל בר אמי'. וכן במנחות כט, ב: 'רמי בר תמרי דהוא חמוה דרמי בר דקולי'. וראה בצ"צ פס"ד ליו"ד סימן קטז ע' ריג: 'אין להביא ראי' מהאמוראי' דנפישי זכותייהו והיו מובטחי' שלא יזיק להם'. וראה גם שו"ת תורת חסד אהע"ז סי' לט: 'וראיתי להגאון בעל ברכ"י בפירושו לס' חסידים שעמד ג"כ בהך דשני חורגים הנ"ל ותי' ע"ז דמאז שהי' הנהוג כן ושכיח טובא ולא הי' עה"ר שולט אבל עתה דלא שכיח כן הרוצה לעשות זיווג כזה יש בזה עינא בישא ושומר נפשו ירחק כו', עכ"ד שם. ואולי י"ל כעין זה גם לענין שמות שוין ליישב הסתירות על הס"ח מהגמ' הנ"ל, (.. ומש"ה אין ראי' כ"כ מאמוראי דאינהו דבגמ' נפיש זכותייהו טובא ותפלת צדיקים כעתר שמהפך כו' רק דמ"מ קצת דוחק לומר שסמכו ע"ז מתחל' כו') ↩
2 סי כו - כז ↩
3 סי' תע"ז ↩
4 ויש שישבו את הסתירה בין דבריו בצוואתו לדבריו בספר חסידים באופנים שונים, וכתב הצמח צדק בפסקי דינים יו"ד על סימן קטז ע' ריג שי"ל שדבריו בספר חסידים שיש להחמיר רק בשלוש דורות '(.. וי"ל שם מיירי כשאינה אמו והוא בנו מאשה אחרת וכן בבן בנו וצ"ע)'. ועד"ז כתב גם במהרש"ם ח"א ס"ס קלו. וראה גם בשו"ת מנחת אלעזר ממונקאטש ח"ג סי' יג, שיש ליישב הסתירה שדבריו בספר החסידים לחשוש רק במשלושין נאמרו לכל. ודבריו בצוואתו נאמרו ליו"ח. וראה לקמן. וראה ישוב נוסף בשו"ת דברי יציב אעה"ז סי"א ↩
5 מסכת חתונה פ"א אות ה ↩
6 ראה חכ"א שער בית הנשים כלל קכג סעיף יג. שו"ת חת"ס ח"ג אהע"ז א סי' קטז ועוד ↩
7 אהע"ז מהדו"ת סי' עט ↩
8 עוד כתב שם הנו"ב: 'שאין לכל חכמים שאחר התלמוד רשות לומר דבר נגד התלמוד והאומר דבר לסתור קוצו יו"ד מדברי התלמוד לא יחשב בכלל חכמי ישראל, ואמנם כשאנו מוצאים אחד מחכמי ישראל המוחזק בתורה וביראה בלי ספק שכתב בספר דבר הסותר לדברי התלמוד חייבים אנו למשכוני נפשין לתרץ דבריו שלא דבר רק לשעה או למשפחה פרטית ודברי תלמוד הם על הכלל .. ואם היה החסיד מצוה צוואה זו לכל ישראל הרי הוא סותר לדברי תלמוד והיה אסור לנו לקבל דבריו כלל'. וראה מש"כ על זה בשו"ת דברי חיים אהע"ז ח"א סי' ח: *'אולם גם לסכל ח"ו דעת רבינו אדון החסידים גם כן ח"ו כי ידוע רבינו יהודא החסיד הי' רבו של הסמ"ג ואור זרוע אשר כל תורתינו ומנהגנו בארץ אשכנז וצרפת נמשכים אחריהם ולכן בודאי יפה שיחתן מתורתן של בנים האחרונים* ושרי ליה מאריה לנוב"י שהרחיב בלשונו נגד ר"י החסיד רבן של גולת אריאל ארץ אשכנז וצרפת' ↩
9 אהע"ז ח"א סי' ח ↩
10 וראה גם שו"ת תורת חסד אהע"ז סי' לט: 'וע"ש [בתשובת שב יעקב סי' כ"ג] שכ' לפרש לשון הצוואה שזהו ספק אם צוואתו לזרעו לבד כו' ע"ש. ואפ"ל דג"ז נחשוב לספק אולי כד' הח"ס והח"א דהצוואה היא דוקא במשולשים כנ"ל, והוי כמו ס"ס ופשוט דל"ד זה לס' סכנתא דלחומרא כו' וא"ל)' ↩
11 ראה שו"ת יוסף אומץ מהחיד"א סימן לז ↩
12 בפס"ד שם ↩
13 עד"ז כתב בשו"ת אהע"ז סי' קמג: 'וכן השיב כאאזמו"ר הגאון נ"ע שגם בענין אם שם הכלה כשם חמותה שבזה יש קפידא יותר משאר שמות שוין לפי שזה הוזכר בספר משנת חסידים גם כן דף פ"ה ע"א ולא הוזכר שם עוד דבר כלל ואפשר הוא מהאריז"ל ולא נזכר שם שיהיה זה לזרעו דוקא. משא"כ בצוואת רי"ח שי"ל שזהו רק לזרעו כו'' ↩
[ב] (Halacha 414)
Concern on account of names [ב]
In the previous halacha we learned about our custom to be concerned for the words of Rabbi Yehuda HeChassid, that a man should not marry a woman whose name is like his mother's name, and that a man should not marry a woman whose father's name is like his own name.
Question: What is the law when their names are not exactly identical, such as when one of them has an additional name?
Answer: The holy Rabbi Pinchas, author of the Hafla'ah1, wrote: 'And this matter is obvious in my eyes, that there is no particularity in this at all, for the one who is particular was particular only regarding names that are completely identical without any difference; but if there is a difference, there is no particularity. And all the more so regarding two names of the betrothed woman, for [the two] are considered as one and the two names combine into one .. and all the more so if she is called by everyone by one name, that there is no particularity at all regarding the second, secondary name, and it never entered anyone's mind to be particular about this.'
And so wrote Rabbeinu the Tzemach Tzedek in the name of the Alter Rebbe, and these are the words of the Tzemach Tzedek2: 'But in this case all of this is unnecessary, since their names are not exactly identical — for this one is called Shmuel and this one is called Shmuel Binyamin — thus this is not at all a case of identical names. (And so too answered my revered grandfather, the Gaon [of blessed memory], that also regarding the matter of whether the bride's name is like her mother-in-law's name — in which there is a greater particularity than [with] other identical names, because it is mentioned in Sefer Mishnas Chassidim as well, folio 85a, and nothing further is mentioned there at all, and it is possibly from the Arizal, and it is not mentioned there that this applies specifically to his descendants; whereas regarding the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid one may say that it is only for his descendants, etc. Even so, if the names are not exactly identical — for example, one is called Rachel and the other is called Rivka Rachel, for instance — there is no need for concern, all the more so in this case, where the names of the mechutanim are [not] identical, which in any event is not a matter of particularity according to the ruling of the Shav Yaakov in the name of the great rabbis as above, for when they are not exactly identical, as in this case, there is no concern at all whatsoever.)'.
However, in Piskei Dinim3 the Tzemach Tzedek explained and sharpened [the point] that there must also be an actual difference in how the name is called, and these are his words: 'Whether one must be particular on account of what is stated in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid §§26–27 and in Sefer Chassidim §477 (one should not marry a woman whose name is like his mother's name, or whose name is like his father-in-law's name, and if he married her he should change one of the names — perhaps there is hope, end quote) — [where] the bride's name is Mussa, for example, and the groom is Mussa Hinda, and she is not called even by some people by one name alone, but everyone calls her by both names together .. and even so it appears to me that in the case at hand there is no need for concern at all, for their names are not identical; and let us consider [the matter] with regard to gittin: if one wrote concerning a woman who is called by two names and wrote only one name, the get is certainly void by Torah law — see the responsum of the ב"א §() — thus one name of her names is merely "half a name," like "Dan" from "Daniel" (see ט"ג לק"ש §1 and in its commentary there note 2). It is true that if some people call her by only one name on its own, one could say that it is her name at least with regard to some people, and therefore there would be room for concern for those who are particular; whereas in the case at hand, where everyone calls her by both names together'.
In practice, many poskim4 cited the aforementioned words of Rabbeinu the Tzemach Tzedek, that when the bride or the mother-in-law has an additional name by which she is also called, there is no room for concern5.
And so too our Rebbeim wrote many times to those who asked, as we find that the Rebbe Rayatz wrote in Igros Kodesh6: 'And regarding the names, in a case where one [woman] has two names, there is no concern in this at all.' And in another letter7: 'And regarding the identical names8 — in the matter of the calling of names in such a manner, there is no need for concern whatsoever, for the name of calling is what is essential.' And so too he wrote9: 'Regarding his question about the shidduch — if there is any difference, even a slight one, or through the addition of a name, there is no need for concern.'
And so wrote the Rebbe in Igros Kodesh10: 'In response to his letter from Sunday, in which he writes regarding the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid concerning the names of a bride and her mother-in-law. And it appears that the report told to him in the name of the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek is that, since one of them has two names, then — in his holy words — there is no concern in the world at all whatsoever; see the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, Even HaEzer section §143, and Piskei Dinim of the Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh Deah §116. b) It is understood that the second name must not fall into disuse in a manner that would make the names identical, and the definition of a name that has fallen into disuse is indeed brought in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and their commentaries §129.'
And in another letter the Rebbe writes11: 'In response to his letter of the 16th of Adar I, in which he writes that several incidents befell him and his household שי' and he does not know to what to attribute them. And behold, I see in his letter that his wife תחי' too [is named] Chaya Sarah Mirel, and his mother's name is Chaya Sarah; and I would be interested to know how his wife תחי' is actually called — whether by all three names or not — and in any case one should endeavor that, at least from now on, his wife תחי' be called in a manner that will constitute the greatest possible difference from the manner in which the names of her mother-in-law תחי' are called. So too it is proper to check the mezuzos in their home, and likewise his tefillin, that they all be kosher according to law; and that each weekday, before the morning prayer, he set aside a few coins for tzedakah, and likewise his wife תחי' should do before candle-lighting each Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom Tov; and may Hashem grant them success to report good [news] in all the aforesaid.'
Thus we have learned that when the two of them do not have exactly the same name (even though they share one name12), and they are also called differently, our Rebbeim wrote that there is no need for concern.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 במכתב לחתנו ובתו, נדפס בסו"ס 'נזיר השם' לאחיו הרה"ק רבי שמואל הורוויץ מניקלשבורג עמ' כח ↩
2 שו"ת אהע"ז סי' קמג ↩
3 יו"ד סי' קטז ע' ריג ↩
4 ראה שו"ת תורת חסד להגרש"ז מלובלין תלמידו של הצ"צ אהע"ז סי' לט בסופו. וכן בהרבה פוסקים, ראה שו"ת מנחת יצחק ח"ז סי' קט, שו"ת יביע אומר ח"ב אהע"ז סי' ז. והליכות עולם ח"ז ע' רכא ואילך. ועוד ↩
5 וראה שו"ת דברי מלכיאל ח"ה סי' רב שכתב: 'ובזה יש לישב קושיית הסה"ד מהא דסוטה (י, ב) שהזכרנו [אודות רב שמואל וחותנו שנקרא שמואל סבא] כי י"ל דכיון שהיה נקרא בפי כל שמואל סבא לא מיקרי זה שמות שוין כשחתנו נקרא שמואל לחוד'. ועד"ז כתב בשו"ת זקן אהרן ח"ב סי' ס. וראה בשו"ת מהרש"ם ח"ה סי' כח: 'והנה בהא דסוטה י"ל דכיון דחתנו הי' מוסמך לרב ולא נקרא בשמו לבד זהו עצמו שינוי' ↩
6 ח"ט ע' שלב ↩
7 ח"י ע' קמח ↩
8 מדובר שלכל אחת מהן היו ב' שמות, וא' מהן שם משותף, אך שם הקריאה אינו משותף ↩
9 חי"א ע' רכד ↩
10 חי"ט ע' רצה ↩
11 חי"ד ע' תמו. וראה גם ח"ח ע' רלט ↩
12 וראה בישועות מלכו יו"ד סי' טו שהתיר גם כששני השמות שווים אך אחד הוא יצחק אליעזר והשני אליעזר יצחק ↩
[ג] (Halacha 415)
Concern on account of names [ג]
We learned in a previous halacha that when a bride and her mother-in-law, or a groom and his father-in-law, are called by the same name but there is a difference in one of the names, and they are also actually called in a different manner, the concern of Rabbi Yehuda HeChassid does not apply.
Question: When both are called by exactly the same name, may one add a name so that their names will then not be identical?
Answer: We find in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid that he wrote: 'One should not marry a woman whose name is like his mother's name, or whose name is like his father-in-law's name. And if he married, he should change one of the names — perhaps there is hope.'
We see from his words that in a case where a couple has already married, and the question now is whether there is a way to prevent them from being harmed, they should add a name, and perhaps this will help.
But the poskim discussed what the law is in a case where it is the same name and they have not yet married — whether one may, from the outset (lechatchila), add a name and thereby remove the concern. And indeed, some wrote that there is no solution to add a name lechatchila, as Rav Chaim Palagi wrote in his work Ruach Chaim1: '.. and since R' Yehuda HeChassid z"l wrote in the manner of a doubt, "perhaps there is hope" — who is it that would enter into a doubt in a matter where there is cause to fear danger and the like, and all the more so since he wrote "and if she was married," etc. — which implies specifically if she was married; but otherwise, even if he became engaged to her, he should send her away..'.
But in the continuation there2 his son R' Avraham wrote: 'And I judge, according to my limited understanding, that what he wrote — "perhaps there is hope" — refers to [a case] that is after the marriage, and also [a case] of one [name] that is set apart from another side; but if it is before the marriage and the name is changed on both sides, then, since at the time of the marriage and in the kesubah each one has a different name, it is not a doubt to say "perhaps there is hope," but rather certainly "hope is good for those who seek You," that they will spend their days in goodness and their pleasant years; and in itself, among the things that tear up a person's [harsh heavenly] decree is a change of name .. all this I wrote to fulfill the wish of the questioner, but the truth I will tell: I am afraid to say that one should act in practice upon it .. and the crown of my head, my father and teacher, may God protect him, did not agree with this at all, and rejected with both hands all that was written by Avraham.'
And indeed, in practice many poskim3 wrote that one may add a name, and that they should use it, and thus there will be no concern at all4, as the Pischei Teshuva5 wrote: 'And in the sefer Kerem Shlomo he wrote that they told him that when the Gaon, author of the Chasam Sofer, was Av Beis Din in Dreznitz, he ruled in practice to change the groom's name because his name was like his father-in-law's name, and then there is no cause for concern — see there. And one must say that the reason he did not mention this in the aforementioned responsum is that, because there was a meritorious reason of Torah there, he did not need another remedy.'
And so too our Rebbeim wrote, as the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek wrote6 in the name of the Alter Rebbe: 'And one [person] related to me in the name of Rabbeinu z"l that two brothers-in-law asked him, where the daughter of one was named like the wife of the other — the mother of (the bride) [the groom] — and they wished to make a shidduch, and he answered that they should add to the bride one more name; for example, that they had been calling her Rachel, and they should [now] call her Rivka Rachel.'
And so wrote the Rebbe Rashab7: 'I was instructed to answer him regarding the shidduch, that they need to add a name to one of them, and that she should be called by everyone by both names or by the added name.'
And so too the Rebbe wrote8: 'They should add to one of them — the prospective bride, or the mother of the prospective groom — a name before the finalization (the public announcement); and the ruling of the Alter Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek is well known, that there is "no concern in the world at all" (Responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, Even HaEzer, end of §143).'
Thus the poskim wrote, and our Rebbeim likewise ruled, that one may add a name9, and then it is considered [a case of] different names, and thereby the concern of a bride's name being like her mother-in-law's, or the groom's like his father-in-law's, is removed. Tomorrow we will learn how and when one should add [the name].
Notes:
1 אהע"ז סי' סב אות יג ↩
2 אות טו"ב (יז) ↩
3 ראה הנסמן בשו"ת יביע אומר ח"ב אהע"ז סי' ז ↩
4 וראה שו"ת נשאל דוד אהע"ז סי לו שכתב שמצא זכר למנהג זה להוסיף שם 'מהא דאי' במס' סוטה אמר שמואל סבא חמוה דרב שמואל .. דלא להוי שם חמוהו וחתני' שוים כאחד והוסיפו לו הכינוי לקרוא לו בשמו שמואל סבא ..' ↩
5 אהע"ז סי' ב ס"ק ז. והאריך בזה בספר שבעים תמרים להרב חיים שמעון דב זיוואוו מרבני חב"ד שקיבל סמיכה מאדמו"ר הצ"צ ↩
6 פס"ד ליו"ד סי' קטז ↩
7 אג"ק ח"ב ע' תתקכב ↩
8 לקו"ש חכ"ד עמ' 460. וראה עוד מכתבים והוראות דומים שנלקטו בשלחן מנחם ח"ו סי' ל ↩
9 להעיר שיש מכתב (אג"ק חי"ז עמ' רעו) בו הרבי מציין: *'ומה טוב ששם הנוסף יהי' בראשונה'*. אך לא מצאנו בעוד מכתבי הרבי הוראה זו. ואולי זה הוראה מיוחדת למקרה שם, וע"ש ↩
[ד] (Halacha 416)
Concern on account of names [ד]
We learned in the previous halacha that some wrote, and such is the opinion of our Rebbeim, that one may add a name to the bride or to the mother-in-law, or in the case of a groom or his father-in-law, and then the concern written in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid does not apply.
Question: How does one add a new name for the purpose of changing the name?
Answer: The poskim wrote1 that a person can establish for himself a new name by using it for a period of at least thirty days2.
As the Knesses HaGedolah wrote3: 'Rav said: whoever's name has been established in the city [for] 30 days, etc. Note: the explanation is that whoever calls him calls him by this name, or they called him up to the Torah, or he signed with this name three times within 30 days — for with three [times] a chazakah is established; and less than 30 days, even with three times, no chazakah is established — the Maharam of Trani, part 2, §52.'
That is to say, a person can establish a name for himself, and by using it for a period of at least thirty days (by being called by it, or being called up to the Torah, or signing with this name at least three times4, 5), it becomes established as his name.
And the Acharonim added that they should make the change publicly, by reciting a Mi Shebeirach for the woman, and by an aliyah to the Torah for the groom. As the responsa Yeshuos Malko wrote6: 'And they should publicize this in public — that is, they should call him up to the sefer Torah by the name Eliezer Yitzchak a few times by this name, and after thirty days it is termed [a case where] their names are not identical, as explained in Even HaEzer, Hilchos Gittin.'
And in the responsa Aprakses D'Anya7 he wrote: 'However, in the case before us it appears to my humble opinion that if the identical names are among the women, they should make for her a Mi Shebeirach with a change of name in public; and if possible with ten [men, a minyan], it is certainly good and proper, and if not, three suffices, and the members of the household should call her thus. And the text of the Mi Shebeirach shall be: "May He who blessed, etc., bless so-and-so daughter of so-and-so (that is, by her name until now), for she will give such-and-such to tzedakah; and from now on her name in Israel shall be called so-and-so so-and-so (that is, her new name and her former name) daughter of so-and-so," etc. — and if the fathers' names are identical, it is likewise good in this manner, and in any event he should go up to the Torah three times within 30 days. And with God's help no evil will befall them, God forbid.'
And see also the letter of the Rebbe8: 'It is proper that to one of them they add another name, and establish the addition by reciting a Mi Shebeirach in the synagogue a few times, etc.'
And regarding a groom, the Rebbe mentioned several times9 that he should establish a new name, and with it go up to the Torah and sign, etc.
Thus we have seen that the establishment of the name is by using it for thirty days, and it is proper to establish the name for a woman with a Mi Shebeirach, and for a groom that he go up to the Torah with the new name and sign with it, and the like.
Notes:
1 ראה תרוה"ד פסקים סי' קל"ח. ובשו"ת המבי"ט המובא להלן בכנה"ג. וראה גם חלקת מחוקק אהע"ז סי' יח סק"ג, ופת"ש סי' קכ סקי"ב, ובסי' קס"ט סקי"א ↩
2 אמנם בשו"ת צמח צדק אהע"ז סי' קעט נוקט לומר שכמו שבנתינת השם, מיד כשקוראים לו את השם בשעת מילה חשוב זה שמו, וא"צ חזקה שלשים יום. כמ"כ י"ל כשמשנים שמו מחמת חולי, (וראה גם בשו"ת חת"ס ח"ו סי' מא). אך נראה שאין זה דבר מוחלט בדעת הצ"צ שהרי כתב בסי' קפא: 'ומה שיש לספק. דבשם שנק' בפי כל שייך חזקה שלשים. אבל בשם שלמה שאינו נקרא בו כלל כ"א כשעולה לתורה והוא יעלה בתורה בשלשים יום אפשר רק פ"א או שני פעמים איך יוחזק עי"ז בשלשים יום .. וי"ל שם צריך ל' יום כדי להסיר חשש קנוניא אבל לענין דליכא למיחש לקנוניא י"ל מיד נקבע לו השם כשהשינוי מסיבה חזקה, ועכ"פ ע"י ל' יום אף שאין נקרא כ"כ בתמידיות .. ועוי"ל ממ"נ אם אין השם נקרא בו כ"כ תמיד א"צ החזקה שיהיה ל' יום תמיד רק כערך קריאתו וצ"ע .. ד. ועיין מענין חזקה דשלשים יום בש"ע אה"ע סי' י"ט ס"ב ובחמ"ח שם סק"ג .. דלבישת בגדי נדות הוי חזקה ליומא וכיוצא בזה י"ל למי שמשנים שמו מחמת חולי י"ל דה"ל חזקה ליומא, ואינו מוכרח דשם זהו אות וראיה שראתה נדה אבל הכא שעי"ז קורים לו שם חדש י"ל לא סגי ביום א'. ומהאי טעמא ג"כ אין הדמיון מהא דפרק חז"ה דלפעמים לאלתר הוי חזקה אינו דומה לחזקת השם. והמבי"ט הובא בכנה"ג סי' קכ"ט בהגהב"י ס"ק ע"ג ע"ד דע"י ג' פעמים שעלה לתורה כן ה"ל חזקה. ומצינו חזקה ג' פעמים גבי שור המועד כמ"ש ר"פ חז"ה (דכ"ח ע"א) כיון שנגח ג' נגיחות כו' וכן גבי ווסתות בג' ראיות בימי החדש או בד' בווסת ההפלגות ותנן פ"ט דנדה (דס"ג סע"א) וכל שקבעה לה שלשה פעמים ה"ז וסת. מיהו גם זה אינו דמיון גמור'. ובפרט בנדו"ד שאין מגמתינו להוסיף ולתת שם, אלא בעיקר לעקור את השם כחמיו, וסברא לומר שבזה נצרך יותר קביעות, וגם דברי הצ"צ נאמרו ביחס לשינוי 'מסיבה חזקה' ואולי שינוי בנדו"ד אינו נחשב סיבה חזקה. ועצ"ע ↩
3 הגהב"י אבהע"ז סי' קכט ↩
4 ראה מ"ש הרבי (אג"ק ח"ו עמ' יב): 'מה שכתב אם צריך הוא להקרא בפי האנשים בשם אברהם מרדכי או שמספיק שיקראוהו בשני השמות רק בעלי' לתורה או בחתימה, הנה אין בזה כללים וכן לא שמעתי בזה הוראות, ובמילא יתנהג כמו שנהג עד עתה' ↩
5 ראה בדברי המבי"ט וכנה"ג והצ"צ הנ"ל. וראה בחידושי אנשי שם סי' פח שכתב מהמבי"ט: 'כל דלא הפסיק בקריאת שם אחר באמצע מהני ג"פ אפילו לזמן מרובה'. וראה בשלחן מנחם ח"ו עמ' קלח בהערה ה, שהרבי הורה לעלות שלוש פעמים בשם החדש ↩
6 חיו"ד סי' טו ↩
7 ח"ג אהע"ז סי' רסד ↩
8 שלחן מנחם שם עמ' קלה ↩
9 נלקטו בשלחן מנחם שם עמ' קלט-קמ ↩
[ה] (Halacha 417)
Concern on account of names [ה]
We learned in the previous halacha that a new name becomes established as the person's name after thirty days from when he began to use it.
Question: Is it necessary that thirty days pass before the conclusion of the shidduch and the tenaim arrangement, or does it suffice that the thirty days pass by the time of the chuppah1?
Answer: We find in the words of the poskim various approaches to this question. Some say that one must be careful that the thirty days pass before the finalizing of the shidduch, and some were not particular about this and wrote that the main thing is that thirty days pass by the time of the chuppah, as follows:
In Shulchan HaEzer2 he wrote: 'And the minhag is to add the name 30 days before the betrothal (hiskashrus),' and he referenced3 the Levushei Mordechai4. And similarly he wrote in the glosses Dvar Tzvi (Meizlish)5: 'In tractate Bava Basra (187b): "whoever's name has been established in the city [for] thirty days, we are not concerned about him"; and so it is established as law in Hilchos Gittin §120 in the Rema, and see Sdei Chemed, Maareches Get §37, letters 20–21; and apparently this is the source that people are accustomed to add [the name] thirty days before the tenaim, since regarding the establishment (chazakah) of the name we require thirty days.'
On the other hand, in the glosses Dvar Tzvi there, he brings in the continuation of his words that in the sefer Eliyah Sheluchah6 he cited a letter from the holy Gaon of Shinover z"l, his great-uncle .. that before the negotiations (mo"v) they should add the name to the maiden, and afterward conclude — with a mazal tov and a blessing — the bond of the tenaim; see there. Thus [the addition] was agreed upon even before the tenaim, and it was not insisted that it be specifically thirty days beforehand.'
Also, in the sefer Shemiras HaGuf VehaNefesh7 he understood that the intent of the Levushei Mordechai is thirty days before the wedding. And so understood the responsa Yabia Omer8: 'And so wrote the responsa Levushei Mordechai, second edition, that people are already accustomed to add a name for the groom thirty days before the chuppah; and so did a certain Gaon do.'
And so wrote the responsa Beis Shearim9: 'Therefore it appears that it is better to change the name of the betrothed daughter from the name of the mother of the [prospective] groom; and it also appears that it is good to maintain the changed name in the city for thirty days before the marriage — and see Bava Basra 167b.'
And in the holy opinion of the Rebbe, at times he directed that it is preferable to change the name thirty days before the conclusion of the shidduch and the tenaim arrangement, and at times he wrote simply to change the name before the conclusion of the shidduch, without noting the condition of thirty days, as follows10:
1) In Igros Kodesh vol. 16, p. 329, it is brought: 'In response to his letter of Rosh Hashanah of the Trees (כי האדם עץ השדה, "for man is a tree of the field"), in which he writes about a distinguished proposal with a young woman who found favor in his eyes — and certainly his intent is that she is G-d-fearing, as befits a proper daughter of Israel — except that her name is like his mother's name; and he concludes that he is a student of the Porat Yosef Yeshiva. If, as stated, she is G-d-fearing, and both of them resolve with the necessary firmness to build a home in Israel upon the foundations of the Torah and the mitzvah, they should add a name for her, and of course they should establish this name with a Mi Shebeirach at an aliyah to the Torah of one of the family members and the like; and then — how good it would be, after thirty days from the first time of establishing the added name — they should conclude the matter, and may it be in a good and successful hour. 2) In a letter of the 5th of Shevat 5728, the Rebbe writes: 'And they should add to the prospective bride a name — (at least) thirty days before the tying of the tenaim'. 3) In Igros Kodesh vol. 17, p. 276: 'In response to his letter of the 23rd of Tammuz, in which he writes that he is 30 years old and has not yet married, and a distinguished [match] is being proposed to him with a young woman whose father's name is like his own name, and a doubt arose with him in connection with what is explained in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid. And behold, since he has been so delayed in marriage — and if the prospective bride is G-d-fearing and will conduct herself as befits the kosher daughters of Israel (precisely: observance of family purity, Shabbos observance, and the kashrus of foods and drinks, within [the framework of] all the mitzvos of the children of Israel) — then it is proper that he seat three rabbis, morei hora'ah, and they should rule the law that they add another name for him, and he should go up to the Torah and also sign with his added name; and how good it would be if the added name be first, and then this has no relevance at all to the aforementioned Tzava'ah, provided that they make the tenaim after his chazakah of thirty days with the new name'.
But on the other hand, we find many responses from the Rebbe in which the condition that it is preferable to be careful about thirty days before the tenaim is not mentioned; for example, in Likkutei Sichos11 two responses are brought: a) 'To add a name to one of them before the finalization is good — in a good and successful hour.' b) 'They should add .. a name before the finalization (the public announcement).'
Thus we have seen that among the Acharonim there are various directives and customs as to when it is proper for the name to be established — whether one must add the name thirty days before the conclusion of the tenaim arrangement, or whether it suffices that they merely make the change before the shidduch. And also in the Rebbe's responses we have not found anything absolute in this12; but it seems that among Anash they are not accustomed to be particular to add the name thirty days before the tying of the shidduchim, but rather the main thing is that there be thirty days before the wedding.
Notes:
1 לכאו' הדברים קשורים גם לדיון האם הסכנה המבוארת בצוואת ר"י החסיד היא גם קודם הנישואים או רק לאחר מכאן, ראה שבעים תמרים דף לח, ג ↩
2 ח"א טז, ב ↩
3 הערה ג ↩
4 או"ח מהדו"ת סי' קה ↩
5 על שו"ת מקדשי ה' ח"א סי' נח אות ב ↩
6 סי' עו ↩
7 סי' קסט ס"י הערה יא. 8ח"ב אהע"ז סי' ז ↩
8 חיו"ד סי' קצו ↩
9 וראה ג"כ אגורה באהלך ח"א ע' קפד ↩
10 חכ"ד ע' 460 ↩
11 להעיר שיש עוד שינויים בהוראות במכתבים בנושא זה יש מקומות בהם הורה הרבי שיש להושיב שלושה רבנים מורי הוראה שיפסקו הדין שיוסיפו לו שם (וכ"כ בשו"ת לבושי מרדכי). ויש מקומות שבהם הרבי לא ציין זאת. ויתכן שהדברים משתנים ממקרה למקרה, וכפי שמצאנו עוד קולות וצדדים בפוסקים כגון גיל החתן, והאם מדובר בת"ח, והאם מקום מגורים שונה וכו' ואכ"מ ↩
[ו] (Halacha 418)
Concern on account of names [ו]
Question: What is the law when the two mechutanim (that is, the groom's father and the bride's father) have an identical name?
Answer: It is written in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid1: 'Two people whose names are identical should not join together [in marriage] through their children (another version [= in other books we find a different reading] they should not make marriages for their two children together) [and this is a doubt whether it is for his descendants or for every person]'2.
And the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek wrote3: 'Regarding what I was asked about the tenaim arrangement, that the mechutan is named Shmuel Binyamin, and your brother-in-law, who is the second mechutan, is also named Shmuel, and your sister, the wife of the aforementioned brother-in-law, is concerned that perhaps on account of this her illness has intensified upon her, because she heard that one should be concerned about this according to the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid .. But in this case all of this is unnecessary, since their names are not exactly identical — for this one is called Shmuel and this one is called Shmuel Binyamin — thus this is not at all a case of identical names. (And so too answered my revered grandfather, the Gaon [of blessed memory], that also regarding the matter of whether the bride's name is like her mother-in-law's name — in which there is a greater particularity than [with] other identical names, because it is mentioned in Sefer Mishnas Chassidim as well, folio 85a, and nothing further is mentioned there at all, and it is possibly from the Arizal, and it is not mentioned there that this applies specifically to his descendants; whereas regarding the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid one may say that it is only for his descendants, etc. Even so, if the names are not exactly identical — for example, one is called Rachel and the other is called Rivka Rachel, for instance — there is no need for concern. All the more so in this case, where the names of the mechutanim are [not] identical, which in any event is not a matter of particularity according to the ruling of the Shav Yaakov in the name of the great rabbis as above; for when they are not exactly identical4 as in this case, there is no concern at all whatsoever.) And she is distressed for naught, hanging empty, baseless things on the shidduch, God forbid, over nothing at all; for in this case there is no concern in the world at all.'
And from the plain meaning of the words of the Tzemach Tzedek it appears that he did not permit entirely, and in principle there is indeed a concern when the two names of the mechutanim are exactly identical.
And in practice the Shivim Temarim wrote5: 'And it is obvious in my humble opinion that in all the cases explained in the preceding section, in which one may be lenient, all the more so may one be lenient here regarding the names of the mechutanim'.
That is to say, one should be concerned about this, but since two mechutanim who share a name is a lighter [case] than a groom and his father-in-law, one may therefore be lenient in this with all the leniencies by which they were lenient regarding a groom and his father-in-law6.
And behold, some wrote to be lenient on account of a sfeik sfeika (double doubt), as the responsa Aprakses D'Anya wrote7: '..and besides this, there is further room to argue regarding this tzava'ah for another reason. For these are his words: "Two people whose names are identical should not join together [in marriage] through their children (another version: they should not make marriages for their two children together)," and this is a doubt whether it is for his descendants or for every person, end quote. Thus it is only a doubt — that perhaps he commanded [it] only for his descendants; and if there is a side to be lenient, we already have a further doubt: perhaps in such a case he did not warn [at all]. And one could further say: perhaps the other version is the primary one, which does not speak of joining together at all, but rather that each of them should not make marriages for his descendants at the time and place that his fellow is making [marriages] for his descendants. And although when they join together they thereby make the marriages together, nonetheless one could say that through his holy spirit he understood that only when each one makes marriages for his descendants at that same time and same place is there an ayin bisha, and not [merely] in their joining together.'
But on the other hand, the Shivim Temarim8 wrote: 'And know that seemingly one could have said to be lenient in this [case] of two mechutanim whose names are identical, because according to the other books' reading cited here, Rabbeinu R' Yehuda HeChassid did not command about this at all; and even according to the reading that he did command about it, there is a doubt whether it is for his descendants or for every person, as written here — and thus it is a sfeik sfeika. However, this is not so, for it is specifically regarding a prohibition (issur) that a sfeik sfeika is [applied] leniently; but regarding danger, even a sfeik sfeika is [applied] stringently..'.
Thus we have seen that when the names of the mechutanim are identical one may be more lenient than [with] a groom whose name is like his father-in-law's name, but it is still something that one must be concerned about — unless it is a situation in which even regarding a groom and his father-in-law we would not need to be concerned.
Notes:
1 אות כח ↩
2 באחרונים הקשו על זה מדברי הגמ' ברכות מב, א רב יהודא הוי מעסק לבריה בי רבי יהודא בר חביבי, ועסיק שם הכוונה על נישואין. ובוהשיב משה סי' סט מיישב שיתכן שלכל אחד מהם הי' גם שם לע"ז אחר ובשמות לע"ז אלו היו נקראים בפי כל, ולכן לא חששו, (אלא שבגמרא שלנו מובאים רק שמות הקודש), [וראה מ"ש בנידון זה בשד"ח מערכת חתן וכלה אות י (ח"ו ע' א'רמז). וראה גם מש"כ בהלכה מספר 413 הע' 1 ובאופן זה יש גם ליישב כאן]. אמנם עצם דברי הוהשיב משה שבמקרה שיש לאנשים שם שוה וכינוים שונים אין חשש, יש להעיר שמשמעות מענות הרבי (ראה אג"ק ח"ח ע' רלט) נראה שצריך שיהי' שינוי גם בשם העצם, וגם בכינוי בפועל. ועצ"ע ↩
3 שו"ת אהע"ז סי' קמג ↩
4 וראה ג"כ שו"ת השיב משה אהע"ז סי' סט, הובא בשו"ת אבני צדק אהע"ז סי' ו. וראה בהלכה 414 ↩
5 עמ' לח, ג ↩
6 ולהעיר ממ"ש הר' אברהם פלאג'י ברוח חיים אהע"ז סי' סב אות יז (טו"ב) שיש להקל במקרה שגרים בשתי ערים שונות. אמנם מלבד מ"ש שאביו לא הסכים עמו, ראה גם מ"ש בשד"ח שם שאם סברא זו נכונה מדוע לא תירצו בזה האחרונים את הקושיות מהגמרא על צוואת ריה"ח. ולהעיר ג"כ ממ"ש שו"ת דברי יציב אהע"ז סי' יב מיוסד על דברי האבני צדק שם: 'וגם במחותנים אפשר שרק בקטנים שמוטל עליו להשיאם, אבל לא בגדולים .. ומ"מ בצוואת ריה"ח אפשר דמיירי בהכי', אך בשו"ת שם משמעון (פולק) אעה"ז סי' ו חלק על היתר זה ↩
7 ח"ג אהע"ז סי' רסד ↩
8 עמ' לט, ד ↩
[ז] (Halacha 419)
Concern on account of names [ז]
Question: Do those who are concerned about the names of the mechutanim likewise concern themselves when there are identical names for the groom's mother and the bride's mother — the mechutanos?
Answer: We saw in the previous halacha that the wording of the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid1 is 'Two people (bnei adam)..'. And some wrote that his wording 'bnei adam'2 refers specifically to the mechutanim (the fathers), and not to the mechutanos (the mothers).3
And so wrote the Shivim Temarim4: 'And know that I do not know from where it became customary among people to be concerned also regarding the names of the mechutanos — that is, that the name of the bride's mother and the name of the groom's mother not be identical; for this is not found at all, since here it is only stated "two people whose names are identical," which implies specifically that he was particular about the fathers and not about the mothers. And in the responsum of the Chasam Sofer5 Even HaEzer §116, cited above [in the preceding section], it is implied that people are concerned about this as well..'.
R' Avraham Palagi, in his responsum in Ruach Chaim6, wrote to explain the distinction between them on account of the evil eye, and these are his words: 'And if there is a difference between males and females — behold, regarding a bride and her mother-in-law he was particular — unless we say that it is all on account of the evil eye, since they are mentioned in the kesubah and in one synagogue and in the Mi Shebeirach, and they go up to the Torah in one [sefer] Torah, and likewise a bride is in one house with her mother-in-law; however, regarding the mechutanos, the groom's mother and the bride's mother, who do not go up to the sefer Torah, and are not counted in a minyan of ten, and are not mentioned in the kesubah and the Mi Shebeirach, and are not in one house — there is no concern.'
And similarly the responsa Avnei Tzedek wrote7: 'Thus he warned only about the mechutanim, for they are the ones who make the shidduch together — that is, the father of the boy and [the father of] the girl — they should not join together through their children; but the mechutanos, upon whom the matter does not depend and who are not written in the tenaim by way of obligation, but rather everything [is] upon their husbands, and the name of the mechutenes is also not mentioned in the kesubah, only the name of the boy's father and the girl's father — [so] where their names are not identical, there is no particularity in this.'
But on the other hand, some wrote that since it is not found explicit in the words of the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda that his words concern only the mechutanim alone, therefore one should not invent reasonings and be lenient. As the Sdei Chemed wrote8: 'And to me, the layman, it does not seem [proper] to distinguish in this — for if the reason is on account of the evil eye, do women not desire life? — a wonder! — and who can determine that the evil eye does not hold sway over women, and what [is it] with this evil [eye] that it goes [only] after men, and is it because I am male that I have lost out? And I have not found, in my humble opinion, a reason to distinguish in this between a man and a woman. I then saw there .. what the master, his son, the great Rav, [what] is said by Avraham, may God protect him — that specifically with two mechutanim .. is there cause to fear the evil eye; however, regarding the mechutanos, the groom's mother and the bride's mother, who are not mentioned in the kesubah nor in the Mi Shebeirach, etc., and are also not in one house, there is no cause to fear the evil eye .. (at the end of his words he wrote regarding his case that his father, the master, the Chavif, did not agree at all with that which he argued to permit in his case, and rejected with both hands all that was written by Avraham) and the truth is that if it were explicit in the words of the Chassid that regarding the mechutanos there is no cause for concern, his words would be correct in their reasoning; but since we do not find it thus explicit in his holy words, who is [qualified] to invent reasons and rule according to them'
.
And some explained that the wording 'bnei adam' includes both a man and a woman, as the responsa Rav"z wrote9: 'On this the Gaon, author of Even Yekarah, wrote (there): since in the wording of the Tzava'ah it states "bnei adam whose names are identical should not join together," and the term "adam" is not a term that includes both man and woman, but rather a man alone — thus the wording of the Tzava'ah does not include the mothers at all, etc.; see there. But with the pardon of his honor, he erred greatly in this, and forgot explicit verses in the Torah of Moshe: 'זכר ונקבה בראם וגו' ויקרא את שמם אדם' ("Male and female He created them .. and He called their name Adam") (בראשית ה, ב): 'ונפש אדם מן הנשים' ("and of persons [adam], of the women") (במדבר לא, לה). Thus it emerges explicitly in our holy Torah that the term "adam" includes male and female. And so it is explicit in the words of the prophet: 'כתפארת אדם לשבת בית' ("like the beauty of adam [a woman], to dwell in a house") (ישעיה מד, יג), and the Targum there: 'כתושבחת אתתא למתב בביתא'. And so Rashi z"l explained (there): "like the beauty of adam" — this is a woman who is the beauty of her husband, end quote.
And regarding the opinion of the Rebbe10: behold, in Igros Kodesh11 the Rebbe writes: 'As to the names of the mothers of the groom and bride, whether one is particular about identical [ones] — see Sdei Chemed, Maareches Chosson v'Kallah, subsection 10.' [And we have already seen that the Sdei Chemed wondered about those who permit, and ruled to be concerned.]
And in another letter12 the Rebbe writes: 'In response to his letter of the fifth of Teves, in which he writes that some time ago he met a young woman, etc., and they had already spoken about marriage and even about the date of the wedding, and afterward she retracted her words and they parted, etc.... And regarding the practical matter: if the elder sister of the aforementioned [woman] has become engaged, or at least will forgive with a full heart, then it is worthwhile to add a name to whichever of the mothers [it may be], for I see in his letter that the name of the young woman's mother and the name of his mother are identical..'.
In the journal Hei'oros U'Vi'urim13 it is related that when R' Yosef Ben-Tzion Reitzes was in the midst of the shidduch arrangements, he entered with the bride into a 'yechidus,' and they signed, as is customary, with their names and their mothers' name; and when the Rebbe saw that the mothers' name was identical — 'Yehudis' — he inquired and asked whether this was the mother's only name. And afterward, when the groom's father entered a 'yechidus,' the Rebbe directed him to add a name to his wife (the groom's mother), so that the names of the mechutanos would not be identical; and when he asked the Rebbe which name to add, he directed him to add the name 'Alte.' And in the sefer Bechol Beisi Ne'eman14 it is likewise related that the Rebbe directed, in a case where the mechutanos' name was identical, that they add a name to one of the mechutanos and wait thirty days until they publicize the shidduch.
Thus we have seen that some of the poskim wrote that one should be concerned also that the names of the two mechutanos not be identical, and so too it appears to be the opinion of the Rebbe — to be concerned and to add a name also regarding the mechutanos15.
----
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 אות כח ↩
2 ראה להלן דברי שו"ת אבן יקרה 'שם אדם אינו שם כולל לאיש ואשה, רק לאיש לבד, וא"כ אין לשון הצוואה כוללת את האמהות כלל' ↩
3 יש כתבו שהוא ספק וכמ"ש בשו"ת אפרקסתא דעניא ח"ג אהע"ז סי' רסד: 'ואם רק שמות האמהות שוים, יש להסתפק עוד, דשמא אין כונת ר' יהודה החסיד ז"ל רק על שמות האבות'. והקיל מחמת הספק אך כבר ראינו (בהלכה 418) מש"כ בשבעים תמרים שכיון שהאיסור הוא משום סכנה אין להקל בספיקות ↩
4 לט, ג ↩
5 ז"ל החת"ס שם: 'ע"ד מי שרוצה לדבק בבן טובים בחור וטוב *אלא דחייש מ"ש העולם משום שמות הבח' עם החותן ושם אמו כשם אמה של המשודכת'*. אלא שהחת"ס בתשובה זו לא מצא את מקור הדברים [שכנ"ל יסוד הדברים לגבי חתן ומחותנים נמצאים בצוואת ר"י החסיד] ולכן כתב להקל והזכיר את זה רק בתור מה שאומרים העולם ↩
6 אהע"ז סי' סב אות יז (טוב) ↩
7 אהע"ז סי' ו. וראה שו"ת דברי יציב חלק אהע"ז סי' יב ↩
8 מערכת חו"כ אות י (ח"ו ע' א'רמז) ↩
9 ח"ב אהע"ז סי' כ (ג) ↩
10 וראה בכ"ז בחקרי מנהגים ח"ד סי' קכד. אגורה באהלך קדושין ונשואין סי' יד ↩
11 חי"א ע' רצה ↩
12 חי"ח ע' קלו ↩
13 גליון 1179 ↩
14 ע' 551 ↩
15 וראה העו"ב גליון 1180 ע' 158. אך להעיר שיש שכתבו (שלחן מנחם ח"ו עמ' קמא בהערה) שיתכן שאין ללמוד ממכתב זה על הכלל כי שם הוא מקרה מיוחד, וראינו שבנושא זה יש שהחמירו במקרים שונים, (וראה גם מ"ש באגורה באהלך בשם הריל"ג (הן לגבי מחותנים והן לגבי מחותנות, אך דבריו צ"ע) ↩
[ח] (Halacha 420)
The marriage of two brothers to two sisters, and a brother and sister to a brother and his sister
It is written in the Tzava'ah of Rabbi Yehuda HeChassid1: 'And two brothers should not marry two sisters'2. And likewise, regarding a brother and sister [marrying] a brother and sister, he writes in his Tzava'ah3: 'A person should not marry into [the family of] his fellow twice — a son and a daughter [to] a daughter and a son'4.
But in a gloss on the Tzava'ah5 it is written that presumably [the prohibition of] two brothers to two sisters is only for his descendants.
And the Knesses HaGedolah wrote6: 'The compiler said: We have seen many [cases of] two brothers married to two sisters whose match did not turn out well, and not only that, but [also] a brother and sister married to a brother and sister who did not succeed in their match.'
But despite the aforesaid, we find in many poskim7 that they were not concerned about these matters in the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid.
And as Rabbeinu the Tzemach Tzedek writes8: 'In the Tzava'ah of the Chassid, §33: "A person should not marry into [the family of] his fellow twice — a son and a daughter [to] a daughter and a son." And I arranged a match for my distinguished son Yisrael Noach9 with [the family of] B"G, even though I had already arranged a match for my daughter with the aforementioned B"G, and I relied on the responsa Noda BiYehuda, Mahadura Tinyana §79 in Even HaEzer, who wrote as follows: "He says that a father and his son should not marry two sisters, yet Rav Papa and his son married two sisters, etc.; but the truth is that the Chassid commanded [this] for his descendants after him, etc.," end quote. And indeed, specifically regarding this [instruction in the] Tzava'ah, one can prove that he certainly commanded [it] only for his descendants. He wrote there that [the prohibition of] two brothers to two sisters was likewise commanded only for his descendants10. And it is obvious that [the case of] "a son and a daughter [to] a daughter and a son should not marry" is lighter than two brothers to two sisters, for there too there is a twofold marriage-bond, and the matter is also equivalent [to] two brothers and two sisters, so it would be a greater particularity. Thus, since there too the particularity is only for his descendants, all the more so in the case at hand. And see in §477 what is written, and many [cases] similar to these. One may say that included in this is the [matter] of the aforementioned §33 of a twofold marriage-bond; thus it is lighter than what is stated there explicitly [regarding] two brothers to two sisters. And thus it is certainly only for his descendants, for one learns the ambiguous from the explicit. And greater than this: in the responsa Shav Yaakov §23 in Even HaEzer, even in the manner explained there that it is a doubt whether it is only for his descendants, etc., he wrote that there is no need for concern when it has [already] been done; and even lechatchila, rabbis and great ones were not particular — see there. All the more so in the case at hand, where it is proven that it is certainly only for his descendants.'
However, in the Shivim Temarim11 he wrote that he heard from his father, the chassid Rabbi Aryeh Leib Zivov, rabbi of the city of Dvinsk: 'I heard from the Rebbe [may his rest be in Eden, may his merit protect us] (the author of the Tzemach Tzedek), who told me that in two matters he did not keep the Tzava'ah of R' Yehuda HeChassid and was punished, God forbid, end quote .. We can surely say that had the Rebbe [of blessed memory], in his lifetime, handed over a writing to bring them to print, to publish them to the world, he would not have handed over these words to be printed — for it is possible that this very matter is one of the two things for which he was punished. And even if this is not one of the two things, in any event his holy opinion is clarified: since he said that he did not keep [it] and was punished, [it implies] that he afterward retracted from this view of saying that Rabbi Yehuda HeChassid commanded [it] only for his descendants.'
But in practice our Rebbeim were not concerned about this, and permitted two brothers to make matches with two sisters, only they held that it is proper12 that they not live in the same place13. As follows:
The Rebbe Rashab writes14: 'Regarding two brothers, whether it is worthwhile for them to marry two sisters, the Rebbe Rashab answered: "If a rabbi will agree to it, she may make the shidduch, and it is correct that they live separately, and may Hashem grant that it be with success, with children, life, and ample sustenance."'
And further, in relation to the directive of the Rebbe Rashab, the Rebbe wrote15: 'My father and teacher z"l and my uncle the chassid z"l married two sisters at the instruction of the Rebbe [of blessed memory], and by his command that they not live in one city16.
And so the Rebbe wrote many times, for example17: '..since he writes in his letter that this is a matter of two brothers and two sisters, behold, one who is not particular — we are not particular with him; and it would be proper, if it is possible, that after their wedding they live in different towns'.
And in another response18: 'And regarding the practical matter, the proposal is correct, and their match will turn out well, and it is proper, if it is easy, that they not live in one city — that is, the two aforementioned couples — and in any event not in one neighborhood — for such a directive was given for the marriage of brothers to two sisters, and all the more so that it helps in the marriage of a son and a daughter [to] a daughter and a son, which is lighter, and regarding which even lechatchila they were not particular; see there in the poskim.'
Thus we have seen that despite the words of R' Yehuda HeChassid in his Tzava'ah, our Rebbeim permitted two brothers to marry two sisters, or a brother and sister to marry a brother and sister, but wrote that it is proper that they not live in one place.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 אות כט. ויתירה מכך כתב בספרו ספר חסידים סי' תעז, עיי"ש ↩
2 ומה שאברהם אבינו ואחיו נחור נשאו שני אחיות, ראה בשבעים תמרים עמ' מ, ד. וראה שם אודות המקרים בהם מצאנו בתלמוד שלא הקפידו בנישואין של אחים לאחיות, וכשם שביארו אודות האמוראים לגבי שאר ההקפדות שכתובים צוואת ר"י החסיד - ראה הלכה 413, וראה גם בשבעים תמרים מ, א. ומ"ש הרבי באג"ק ח"ג ע' קפב ↩
3 אות לג ↩
4 בטעם החילוק של ב' אזהרות אלו שבצוואה לשתים, האריך בשבעים תמרים (עמ' מב, ב). וראה שו"ת מנחת אלעזר ח"ג סי' יג: 'ולפענ"ד נראה מדוייק בלשונו שם (בסי' כט) דלא ישאו ב' אחים ב' אחיות קאי על האחים לבדן שלא ישאו ב' אחיות ומ"ש (בסי' לג) שלא ישתדכו בניהם קאי על המחותנים שמשדכים בניהם זע"ז. נמצא נ"מ דאם א' מהמחותנים כבר מת אז ל"ש הסכנה דנשתדכו דהא רק בניהם בעצמם ישאו זל"ז אבל בהך דב' אחים וב' אחיות הוא עליהם בעצמם גם אם מתו אבותיהם, וז"ב. ולפלא כי לא העירו זה באחרונים שדיברו מזה. (ועיי' מ"ש בזה בשבעים תמרים בשם הגה"ק מליבאוויטש ז"ל בעל הצ"צ) ועכ"ז מסתפינא להקל למעשה ולסמוך עלי הגם שנראה כן נכון מלשונו כנזכר' ↩
5 בדפוס וינציה תעח. וראה דברי הצ"צ לקמן. בשבעים תמרים (סוף סי' ל, וסו"ס לג) העיר על המגיה, שמכך שאזהרה זו כתובה גם בספרו 'ספר חסידים' מוכח שזה לא רק לזרעו ↩
6 הגהב"י אבהע"ז סי' סב אות ד ↩
7 ראה הנסמן בהנישואין כהלכתם ח"א עמ' ע ↩
8 פס"ד ליו"ד סי' קטז (עמ' ריג) ↩
9 The Maharin of Niezhin married, in his first marriage, his cousin Mrs. Freida, daughter of Rabbi Yekusiel Zalman (grandson of R. Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev) and the Rebbetzin Beila Wals, daughter of the Mitteler Rebbe, and his sister Mrs. Devorah Leah married Rabbi Levi Yitzchok, the son of the aforementioned (see Bnei HaTzemach Tzedek (Blau) p. 159). [And to note that Mrs. Freida passed away after a short life, and additionally, in a later marriage the Maharin married Mrs. Chana Chika, daughter of Rabbi Menachem Nachum, son of the Mitteler Rebbe, even though the son of Rabbi Menachem Nachum, R. Shneur, was already a son-in-law of the Tzemach Tzedek (Heichal HaBesht 19 p. 128)] ↩
10 In Shivim Temarim (end of siman 33) he wrote: 'There is much to examine, for that which is written in siman 30 is not from the body of the words of the tzava'ah .. rather it is from the words of the editor, and we have already written at the end of siman 29 that since it is written thus in Sefer Chassidim it is proven that it was said for every person' ↩
11 Siman 33 p. 42, 4 ↩
12 And to note that sometimes we find that they wrote this as a condition, (see also the Rebbe's response (Shulchan Menachem vol. 6 p. 120): 'If the woman under discussion is G-d-fearing, of good character, etc., and only the above is an impediment — they should look into the above, provided that it be on condition to live not in one city'. But on the other hand, in many responses this is brought only if it is possible and not as an absolute condition ↩
13 And see in siman 38, from the tzava'ah of R. Yehuda HeChassid: 'Married brothers should not live together in one city', and although regarding this concern some have written that it applies only when there are four brothers together. (See Sefer Chassidim siman 247, and Shivim Temarim siman 38, and see also Responsa Rabaz vol. 2, Even HaEzer siman 35), and it is possible that here, since two concerns combine — also the matter of the marriage of two brothers to two sisters — they were more stringent and were concerned for his words that they should not live together. And see also HaOros U'Biurim issue 767, Shulchan Menachem vol. 6 p. 120 note 12 ↩
14 Igros Kodesh vol. 2 p. 923 ↩
15 Igros Kodesh vol. 3 p. 182 ↩
16 In Toldos Levi Yitzchok vol. 2 (5778 edition) p. 12 it is related that Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn, brother of R. Levi Yitzchok, before the signing of the tena'im hesitated because he was concerned for the tzava'ah of R. Yehuda HeChassid, and the Rebbe Rashab told him that he himself would write the tena'im and that all would be in a good and auspicious hour ↩
17 Igros Kodesh vol. 6 p. 190 ↩
18 Igros Kodesh vol. 8 p. 30 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group