03 Dec 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. A gloss to the Mordechai

(Sanhedrin, end of no. 721)
quotes a responsum of an
unnamed Gaon who rules that
even though mechutanim can
serve as witnesses for each
other, they 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
both may testify and may 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.