09 May MECHUTANIM IN HALACHAH

I. Fathers-in-Law
There is a deep
lesson in the fact that
there is no English
equivalent of the
word “mechutanim.”
Mechutanim are the

parents of your son-
or daughter-in-law (mechutan is the male

part of the mechutanim). When your
child marries, you gain not only a son or
daughter but also a set of corresponding
parents who become your mechutanim,
as the two families join together. I believe
that the lack of English equivalent reflects
the difference between the Jewish view of
marriage and Western society’s vision of
a couple starting out new, leaving behind
the past. To Jews, marriage is a joining of
families. To Western society in general,
marriage is a joining of two individuals
into a couple. However, mechutanim is not
a biblical word. Nor does it appear in the
Talmud. I do not believe it existed in the
time of Rashi and Rambam. The first I have
seen of the term is in the sixteenth century,
in an Egyptian responsum of the Radbaz,
as we shall see shortly. The word seems
to have gained usage sometime between
the years 1200 and 1500 (Rambam died

in 1204 and Radbaz was born roughly in
1480).
A significant discussion of mechutanim
revolves around the roles of witnesses and
judges. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 28b) says:
“The father of the groom and the father
of the bride can testify about each other.
There are considered to each other only
like a lid on a barrel.” Note that the Talmud
does not have a term for mechutanim and
instead uses the lengthy terms of “father
of the groom (avi chassan)” and “father
of the bride avi kallah).” When explaining
these terms, Rashi describes Reuven’s
son who marries Shimon’s daughter,
without invoking the term mechutanim.
The Gemara says that mechutanim are
not joined into a single unit, like different
parts of a utensil, but rather like a lid to a
pot. They are related but not connected.
Therefore, they can serve as witnesses for
each other. If they literally became close
family, they would not be allowed to testify
about each other.
II. Judging a Mechutan
There is a general rule that someone for
whom you cannot testify, you also cannot
serve as a judge on a case involving him.
However, there are exceptions to this rule.

An unattributed gloss to the Mordechai
(Sanhedrin, end of no. 721) quotes a
responsum of an unnamed Gaon who rules
that just like mechutanim cannot serve as
witnesses for each other, they also cannot
serve as judges. Even if one mechutan
serves in a formally appointed position
as judge, a litigant against the judge’s
mechutan can invalidate the judge for this
case because of their relationship.
Rav Yosef Kolon (Maharik; 15th cen.,
Italy; Responsa, no. 21) addresses the
issue of a rabbi serving as a judge on
a case in which his mechutan is one of
the litigants. Maharik quotes Rambam’s
Mishnah commentary to Niddah (6:5).
The Mishnah (Niddah 6:5) says that there
are some people who may testify about
each other but may not serve as judges for
each other. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 29a)
says that one the exception the Mishnah
has in mind is someone blind in one eye.
Rambam asks why the Mishnah does not
also have in mind two people who love
or hate each other, who also may testify
but may not judge each other. Rambam
explains that the Mishnah omits these
exceptions because these strong feelings
of affection or the opposite often change
quickly. Maharik notes that Rambam does
not ask why the Mishnah does not have
mechutanim in mind. It must be, argues
Maharik, that mechutanim are not an
exception. Rather, they may neither
testify nor judge each other. (Neither
Rashi, Rambam nor Maharik use the
term mechutanim.)
Significantly, Rav Moshe Isserles
(Rema; 16th cen., Poland; Shulchan
Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 33:6) rules
like the Gaon that mechutanim should
not serve as judges for each other.
However, taking into account Maharik’s
leniency, after the fact (bedieved) such
a judgment would be valid. However,
there is more to say on the subject. Rav
Meir (Maharam) Lublin (17th cen.,
Poland; Responsa, no. 63) was asked
by someone who found Maharik’s
deduction from Rambam’s commentary
to be quite weak. Maharam Lublin
defends Maharik’s deduction but
concludes that his own opinion is that
a mechutan is just like someone who
loves you. Is there any greater friend
than a mechutan?
III. Not All Mechutanim Love Each
Other
Earlier, Rav David Ben Zimra
(Radbaz, 16th cen., Egypt; Responsa
1:631), a contemporary of Rema, was
asked about this subject. He deduces
that a mechutan can serve as a judge
from Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, not his

Mishnah commentary. Rambam (Mishneh
Torah, Hilchos Eidus 13:11) says that
mechutanim (without using that term) may
testify about each other. When Rambam
(ibid., 16:6) lists all the exceptions to the
rule that someone who may testify may
also judge, he does not include mechutanim
in the list of exceptions. This deduction is
much stronger than Maharik’s deduction
from Rambam’s Mishnah commentary,
which Radbaz quotes as well.
Radbaz also makes the following
important point: “I have already seen many
mechutanim who hate each other.” Just
because your children marry does not mean
that you become automatic best friends.
Some mechutanim maintain very warm
and close relationships, as I do with my
mechutanim. Others are not best friends.
Therefore, we cannot automatically
disqualify mechutanim. If they are close
friends then they fall under the general
disqualify of a friend serving as a judge.
If they hate each other, they fall under
that category. And if they are somewhere
in between, they are qualified to judge
each other. There is no need for a special
category of mechutanim.
In practice, there are many different
opinions with a variety of nuances.
Pischei Teshuvah (Choshen Mishpat
7:15) provides a lengthy summary of later
views. However, the very fact that such a
conversation exists points to the important
nature of the mechutan relationship in the
Jewish community.