[Avodah] Standing for the Chasan and Kalah

[Elazar M. Teitz]

RZSero, reacting to the comment that the chasan has no status as such until after all the brachos have been said, writes:

<It seems to me that this is not at all as obvious as the author
thinks.  First, the chatan has done something in the matter of kidushin and nisuin - he has accepted a kinyan on the ketuba.    Indeed, the first time he is mentioned in the ketuba he is
not called "hechatan", because the kalah has not yet indicated her acceptance of his proposal; but the second time he is mentioned he is called "chatan dinan", and he continues to be called that every time he is mentioned again, because by this time he has made his proposal, and the witnesses have reason to believe that the kalah has accepted it*.>

     To this, he appended a footnote:

<* (Precisely what reason they have to believe this is another
question, since she isn't usually present when the ketubah is filled in and signed, and the witnesses make the kinyan on her behalf, without necessarily ever having met her, let alone asked her whether she authorises them to do so.  But that's a question for
another time.)>

     I believe that the above is mistaken on two grounds. First, it is far from universal not to write "hechasan" the first time. Indeed, in all k'subos printed until about 40 years ago, it was "hechasan" the very first time as well.  It need not be representative of a halachic statement, but of common usage: we refer to an engaged couple as chasan and kallah long before the k'suba. The use of the word may reflect legal status no more than does the wedding invitation.

     Second, the reason for calling him  "hechasan" thereafter is not because the kallah has indicated acceptance of his proposal; it is because she has already accepted kiddushin from him.  

     The kinyan and signing of the kesuba were not meant to take place until after the kiddushin. Indeed, the k'suba itself states explicitly that he said to her "hevei li lintu k'das Moshe v'Yisrael" (or, in other words, "Harei at m'kudeshes . . ."). "Hevei li l'intu" is not a proposal. One might say "Will you marry me?" or "Will you be my wife?," but I doubt if anyone ever proposed by saying "Be my wife k'das Moshe v'Yisrael."

      That it is not merely a proposal, but a reference to his having been m'kadesh her, is obvious from the next words: "Utz'vias maras Plonis bas Ploni vahavas lei l'intu," that Mrs. (note the title) So-and-so consented and became his wife.

     By right, the kinyan should be made and the kesuba signed at the point where now we read it.  In EY, many do just that: the k'suba is read until "v'kanina," at which time the kinyan is made and the eidim sign, and then the last part is read.

     In fact, the not writing of the word "v'kanina" until after the kinyan is performed is somewhat an absurdity.  Its source is the Nachalas Shiva, who says that to write it before it was done is "mechezi k'shikra."  When done as intended, possibly (after all, it isn't _signed_ until after kinyan). But nowadays, when witnesses actually sign a document in which the as-yet-to-happen kiddushin are presented as a fait accompli, it seems absurd to worry about writing, not signing, that a kinyan has taken place before it actually has. Until fairly recently, common practice was not like the Nachalas Shiva; most printed k'subos until 40 years ago had the "v'kanina" printed.  Its omission has led to the non-uncommon situation in which the word is inadvertently omitted until after the signing, and filling it is subsequently raises serious questions about the document's validity -- reason enough to eliminate the risk of its happening by printing the word.
 
     (I once argued this point with a rosh yeshiva at a yeshivishe chasuna, where the chasan would be in a kollel and the kallah would earn the parnasa. On the way home, my wife asked what it was about, and when I told her, she said, "And when it says that he promised 'va'ana eflach v'okir v'eizon va'afarnes yasichi,' isn't that mechezi k'shikra?")

     In any event, as regards the honor due to the chasan, signing the k'suba has no effect; nor, for that matter, does the act of kiddushin.  His special status is due to the chupa, as in the pasuk "v'hu k'chasan yotzei meichupaso."  See the RM"A in OC 131:4, regarding tachanun, that he is only called a chasan "b'yom shenichnas lachupa." 

EMT