A Series of Cases regarding Marriage

In the year 303 [1543], Joseph Catalan claimed that he had married his betrothed Regina, daughter of Moses Ḥayim, on Yom Kippur in front of the gate of her father’s courtyard, by giving her a shawl for the purpose of betrothal. R. Joseph Ibn Lev released her from the betrothal for several reasons, without mentioning the “Regulation of Excommunication” (Shut Maharival I.19).

In the year 311 [1551], Yom Tov Elmaliakh brought witnesses to the effect that he had married Siti, daughter of Abraham Alfondiari. Here the ruling was also to release her (ibid., 20).

In the year 313 [1553], Yom Tov claimed that he had married Siti, daughter of Abraham with a Venetian masquerade mask on Purim day in her house, while her father and mother were sitting outside near the door of their house. The rabbis of the city were divided in their judgment, for some of them ruled to release her, and on that basis she went and accepted a betrothal from another man. However, R. Isaac Adarbi ruled that she was betrothed to Yom Tov and that the second betrothal was not valid at all. The Radbaz [David Ibn Abi Zimra] agreed. R. Isaac Adarbi concluded his ruling with these words: “Since the subject is contemptible and ugly, as a fence has been breached and the honor of a Jewish maiden has been sullied through this secret betrothal, not in accordance with Jewish custom, I would rule to punish him and force him to release her with a bill of divorce, for a deceitful man will not roast his prey” (Proverbs 12:27, Divre rivot 4–5).

In the year 316 [1556], testimony was given about the frivolous betrothal of Israel de Lushina, who gave to Ishtrelia, daughter of Abraham Israel, a pandeiro [drum] that belonged to another girl, and R. Israel said, “It was all done in a frivolous manner, and perish the thought that he ever intended to betroth her,” but nevertheless R. Isaac Adarbi required her to receive a bill of divorce out of doubt (Divre rivot 10).

[Another betrothal was performed] with a thimble of silver in a courtyard, before two witness whom he called for the purpose, and they heard testimony about this in the year 327 [1567] in the court of R. Isaac Adarbi, and R. Moses Almosnino and R. Samuel of Modena ruled to permit her [to marry someone else without going through a divorce] for various reasons (Shut Rashdam, Even ha-‘ezer). Here too, they did not make use of the regulation permitting excommunication. R. Joseph ben David Ibn Lev was also asked about this matter, but it was made known to him that there was a difference of opinion among the rabbis of Salonika on this ruling, and therefore he withdrew from the matter and only wrote some “investigations” (Shut Maharival 3.84).

In the year 327 [1567], evidence was given in Salonika about a hasty betrothal, “over a glass of wine,” which Aaron Cohen received for his daughter Estrella from Isaac Gerasi on behalf of his son Joshua, in front of witnesses who were unqualified because of their transgressions. R. Samuel of Modena began his responsum on this matter as follows:

Accordingly, he proposed permitting her without a bill of divorce (Shut Rashdam, Even ha-‘ezer). R. Isaac Adarbi likewise concluded his ruling releasing her with the following: “Everything is false and a lie, and the groom and the witnesses are all, in their bones and essence, like broken cisterns [see Jeremiah 2:13], as the report is accompanied by its own neutralization [see b. Gittin 89a]. If I had the power, I would punish them with a thorn that does not draw blood [i.e., excommunication, see b. Bava Kamma 91a], for they have committed a disgrace in Israel and slandered the daughter of a kohen [priest], by betrothing her with false and deceitful words” (Divre rivot 185).

In the same year—327 [1567]—all the rabbis of the city of Salonika gathered to discuss the slander issued by R. Abraham about the daughter of R. Joseph. He said that she had betrothed his son David in the year 325 [1565], and he presented a memorandum of testimony about the betrothal. However, one of the witnesses who signed the writ testified under pain of a severe oath that he had never seen or been found at the betrothal. Also, he had never learned to write, not even a single letter. Regarding the fact that his name was found signed on the writ, he claimed that the father of the man who gave the betrothal had beguiled him and made him dependent upon him by helping him when he was imprisoned in jail for monetary matters, as he had bailed him out of there. Consequently, “since I did not know the actual status of the betrothal, I decided to do his bidding.” The father of the man who gave the betrothal then placed a quill in his hand and held his hand with the quill in it and signed his name with two hands, the hand of the father and that of the witness, both of them together guiding the quill and the letters, but he himself had never learned how to write and also could not read the writ. R. Isaac Adarbi ruled that this girl should not be released without a bill of divorce, “even though I have pangs of conscience over this, as I suspect it is all a lie and a trick and the betrothal never took place, nevertheless, who can be absolutely sure and permit such a severe prohibition even when it is very likely, without testimony as clear as the sun” (Divre rivot 187).