Different situations may call for different appropriate responses. I will discuss a scenario that I was personally involved in, from which we can learn some general lessons. I was at a wedding at which the mesader kiddushin was a respected scholar, and many of the assembled were knowledgeable in halacha. As the ketuba was being read under the chupa, I thought I heard that the date was that of the previous year, but I did not see anyone else react. (In legal documents, including the ketuba, what is written is crucial, not what is read.) What was I to do?
Let us consider a little background. A predated document of obligation is invalid.[1] A document of obligation creates a lien on the property of the obligated person, either when it is signed or when it is handed over to the recipient of the obligation. The lien allows the recipient of the obligation to seize real estate that belonged to the obligated individual at the time the document was activated from a subsequent buyer of that property. It is thus important to know if the obligation preceded the purchase by the third party. One could misuse a predated document to seize property from someone who actually bought it before the obligation took effect, when there was no lien. Therefore, a predated ketuba, which is a document of obligation, cannot serve as such,[2] at least until it is corrected. Since a couple is not allowed to live together without a valid ketuba,[3] in my case, it had to be determined whether the ketuba was in fact dated a year early. On the other hand, stopping the chupah would be embarrassing and disconcerting to the mesader kiddushin and the families. Could the inquiry wait?
At first glance, the question would indeed seem pressing, as the Shulchan Aruch[4] rules that yichud[5] is forbidden without a valid ketuba and Ashkenazi couples have yichud right after the chupa. However, the Rama[6] seems to accept the opinion that yichud is permitted without a ketuba. Furthermore, the Shulchan Aruch[7] says that a valid ketuba is not necessary if there are witnesses that the chatan obligated himself to the terms of the ketuba with a kinyan sudar,[8] which is regularly done at a wedding. The Rama[9] agrees that these witnesses can be relied upon, albeit only in a case of need and until there is an opportunity to write a proper ketuba.
Therefore, I decided that it was halachically proper to wait until the crowd dispersed after the chupa, and I could inquire discretely. I felt that there was a serious issue of kavod haberiyot (human dignity), as people are under the impression that distinguished rabbis should not be making mistakes of this sort. (In fact, everyone is human, and high intelligence and extensive knowledge do not preclude careless mistakes.) Unlike corrections during Torah reading, which are expected, an invalid ketuba uncovered under the chupa by a mere guest makes for a good story to pass around, likely in a manner that violates the laws of lashon hara.[10]
In fact, my inquiry led to a chain of events, which ended in the mesader kiddushin (and a small group of others, but more than I had hoped for) realizing that the ketuba was clearly predated by one year and invalid. The chatan and kalla were (unnecessarily, in my view[11]) interrupted in the yichud room by a young “watchman.”[12]
After the wedding, I had second thoughts about my on-the-spot halachic reasoning. Some have the minhag that the witnesses sign the ketuba only after it is read under the chupa, and this was the practice followed at this particular wedding. Perhaps I should have raised the alarm then and enabled the process of rectifying the mistake to take place before the witnesses signed, in spite of the fact that those assembled would have to wait and would inevitably find out about the mistake. By not doing so, I allowed the witnesses to unknowingly violate the commandment of “Do not bear false testimony against your fellow,”[13] given that one important element of the testimony that they were signing was false.
In retrospect, I thought of four reasons that might justify my silence. Since each one could be the topic of a full article, I will just hint at one. The Rambam and Rosh argue about a case in which one sees a friend unknowingly wearing sha’atnez in public. The Rambam[14] says that one should pull the forbidden clothing off of his friend. However, the Rosh[15] maintains that since the violation is unintentional and removing the garment in a public place would be embarrassing, one should wait to inform him until he is in a private place. Along the lines of the Rosh, allowing the unknowing witnesses to sign the improper document in order to save others from significant embarrassment is very possibly justified.