A Shidduch Solution
‘Known In A Town For Thirty Days…’
(Bava Basra 167b)
The Mishna (167a) states that one may not write or sign a get on behalf of a man unless the man is known to be the husband named in the get. The difficulty is that if they (the scribe and the signatories) are not familiar with the individual presenting himself as the husband in the get, he might prove to be an imposter.
Rashbam (s.v. “sheyehei …”) explains it is within reason that he is in fact creating a get for another man’s wife. She will then falsely come to collect her kesubah by producing this get claiming she was divorced.
The Impostor
Thus, if an individual who is unfamiliar to any of the local populace moves into a town and seeks to obtain a get to divorce his wife, he must produce a witness (Rosh notes that even a single witness, a woman or a relative is believed in this instance) who can attest to his identity; otherwise he is viewed as an imposter as Rashbam notes.
Visitor vs. Resident
Huna b. Chinana, however, qualified this rule and declared that once a person established residence in a particular locality for thirty days or more under a certain name, it is safe to assume that he is indeed that person. This is because he would be wary to use a false name for that length of time in any one place lest his ruse be discovered.
Unintended Consequences
Relating to the veracity of names found in a get we cite the following:
It is well known that Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid left a tzava’a (testament) cautioning his children against entering into any marriage where the prospective mother-in-law or father-in-law bears the same name as either the bride or the groom. There are many reasons offered, among them that in earlier times extended families all lived in one household in close quarters, and due to the similarities of names an unintended harsh transgression would be a possibility. Others offer that it is due to Kabbalistic reasons unknown to us.
Descendants Only
Pischei Teshuva (Even Ha’ezer 120:3) notes that not all communities abide by Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid’s tzava’a as they maintain that his restrictions were only intended for his descendants. Further, some authorities limit the restriction to only where the identical names of the in-laws (on both sides) go back three generations.
Citing Our Gemara
The Chasam Sofer (Responsa Yoreh De’ah 15) was once presented with this problem – a groom who had the same name as his prospective father-in-law. It was obvious that the Chasam Sofer considered Rabbi HaChasid’s testament when he advised the groom to add another name to his own (which he would now use). By so doing the restrictions were no longer a matter of concern for now they surely did not have the same name and the shidduch was able to proceed as planned.
In light of our Gemara, Responsa Yeshuas Malko (cited by Pischei Teshuva, Even Ha’ezer 2:sk7) qualifies the above that the groom should use his new name publicly for at least thirty days prior to his engagement (i.e., being called up to the Torah by that new name). By so doing, he has established his new identity to the degree that this is now his real name.
