Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message



    In 1527, in a courtyard in Egypt, a young Jewish man gave a young Jewish woman a wedding ring against her father’s wishes. Or at least that is what two witnesses claim occurred. Two other witnesses testified that this was impossible because they observed the area whose gate was closed the entire time and did not see the couple or the original witnesses inside the area, leading to a heated cross-border rabbinical debate with responsa from five leading authorities. The complex halakhic issues are fascinating, as great minds apply Talmudic law differently to a real case. Equally interesting are the practical dimensions.

    In short, Rav Ya’akov (Mahari) Beirav of Tzfas ruled that the woman is not married and does not need a get (religious divorce). Rav Moshe (Maharam) Alashkar and Rav David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz), both in Egypt, ruled that she needs a get — which was done after the man was enticed with money “as is appropriate to do.”


    It seems that Mahari Beirav was manipulated. A third set of witnesses emerged that contradicted the marriage. One of this third set of witnesses was named Yosef Ibn Gabbai. Ibn Gabbai traveled across Israel to Damascus, presenting the case to rabbis. He wielded a court’s record of the testimony of the first two sets of witnesses, added a few half-truths and blatant lies, and omitted key facts. Most significantly, he failed to mention that he had subsequently married the young woman and wanted the first marriage declared invalid. Based on this faulty evidence, Mahari Beirav reached a lenient conclusion and gave Ibn Gabbai a written ruling annulling the first marriage that he believed did not occur.

    Clearly, Ibn Gabbai maliciously attempted to elicit under false pretenses annulment of the first marriage in order to avoid paying the first man to divorce the woman. However, the rabbis in Egypt insisted on the divorce, which happened. The question remains whether Ibn Gabbai was allowed to remain married to her.


    Mahari Beirav’s ruling (Responsa, 42) is elegantly written and compellingly argued. Maharam Alashkar (Responsa, 60) replied to Mahari Beirav’s ruling with a biting, forceful responsum arguing on both fact and law. Rav Levi Ibn Chaviv (Ralbach) replied to Maharam Alashkar defending Mahari Beirav, although taking a middle ground that forbade the woman to both the first and second men (Responsa, 138). Ralbach tells us that Ibn Gabbai approached him in Jerusalem. However, Ralbach felt that even given the limited evidence provided, he could not rule leniently.

    Radbaz (Responsa, 4:56, 7:51) also replied to Mahari Beirav, although more respectfully than Maharam Alashkar. The latter had clashed with Mahari Beirav a number of times when they were both leading rabbis in Egypt. Maharam Alashkar (Responsa, 61-62) responded to Ralbach’s reply with respectful disagreement. The difference in tone between his correspondence with Mahari Beirav and Ralbach reveals the interpersonal dimensions in this debate, although even the friendship and respect between Maharam Alashkar and Ralbach could not bridge their halakhic disagreements. Finally, Mahari Beirav’s student, Rav Moshe of Trani (Mabit), defended his teacher with strong words against Maharam Alashkar’s attacks (Responsa, 1:49), showing how the latter misunderstood some of Mahari Beirav’s arguments.


    Maharam Alashkar notes a number of factual problems with the case Ibn Gabbai shopped around to rabbis. First, as the (second) husband, his testimony is completely invalid. Additionally, the original man and woman, whose marriage was under question, were longtime sweethearts who wanted to marry but the woman’s father objected. This becomes relevant when Mahari Beirav questioned the man’s words when he gave the woman a ring (“take this as kiddushin for me”). Those words are ambiguous, because he could have asked her to guard the ring that he plans to use as kiddushin for another woman. However, given the context of their romance, that interpretation becomes implausible. Both Maharam Alashkar and Radbaz point out that the ambiguity only lies in the court’s Hebrew translation but the original language is clear.

    Radbaz disputes the witness Ibn Gabbai brought to Mahari Beirav, who said that the woman was a minor at the time that the first wedding was supposed to have taken place. He met her in person and saw that she was well past twelve years old, which was confirmed by the year in which they say she was born. Maharam Alashkar says that, contrary to what was told to Mahari Beirav, the woman does not deny that the original marriage took place. He also says that if you look at the place where the second set of witnesses claim to have been standing, you cannot see from there the gate that they claim was closed the whole time, preventing the first witnesses from entering the area where the wedding supposedly took place. Additionally, there are other entrances so the testimony about the gate does not prove that the first set of witnesses were absent.

    There is more but this should suffice to emphasize the importance of independent, local information.

    V. LAWS

    A case as complex as this contains many legal points of contention. One is whether the testimonies of the first and second set of witnesses conflicted. Could the second set be mistaken about the time? After all, no one wore watches in those days. The Gemara (Pesachim 11b) debates how big of a mistake in time we can attribute to witnesses. Mahari Beirav disagrees with Maharam Alashkar and Radbaz in the interpretation and application of this text.

    The rabbis of Egypt had previously decreed that a man may not marry a woman without the presence of a minyan of ten men and the approval of a Jewish court. Mahari Beirav asks whether that decree intended merely to excommunicate the man or also annul the marriage, which the rabbis may do with a decree. Mahari Beirav believes the decree annuls the marriage. Maharam Alashkar disputes this because the decree is enforced currently (in his time) with just excommunication, not annulment. Mabit points out that the decree was enacted long before and reportedly was enforced with annulment of the original marriage.

    The debate about this episode covers many more issues, particularly regarding proper procedures for testimonies. It also reveals the challenges and personalities of great rabbinical figures in the generation of the Spanish expulsion. Perhaps most importantly, it teaches us to be wary of biased sources and to always strive for independent verification of facts.