Eliezer Bloom was getting married.
In preparation for the wedding, Rabbi Wise, who was going to be mesader kiddushin, asked to see the kesubah of Eliezer’s parents, who had married thirty years ago.
Rabbi Wise looked over the kesubah. He mostly wanted to see how Mr. Bloom’s first name was spelled, since it was not a standard one.
While looking over the kesubah, Rabbi Wise frowned sternly.
“What’s the matter?” asked Eliezer.
“There is a potential problem with your parents’ kesubah,” Rabbi Wise replied.
“What is the problem?” asked Eliezer with concern. “Does it affect me?”
“No, don’t worry about that,” replied Rabbi Wise. “Come read the date, and see for yourself.”
Eliezer read the Hebrew date: “In the year five thousand and fifty-four…”
“Wow, they got married in 5754!” Eliezer exclaimed. “Whoever filled out the kesubah mistakenly omitted the seven hundred!”
“Indeed,” Rabbi Wise responded. “There is a serious question whether such a kesubah is valid. I will have to tell your parents that they should consult their rav as to whether they need to write a new kesubah.”
Rabbi Wise called Mr. Bloom. “I noticed that there is a potential problem with the date in your kesubah,” he said. “It mistakenly says 5054 instead of 5754. Please discuss with your rav whether you need to write a new kesubah.”
“That’s very strange,” replied Mr. Bloom, “but I’m glad you caught it.”
Mr. Bloom called Rabbi Dayan, and asked:
“Is our kesubah valid if the centuries were omitted?”
“The date, as written, is predated 700 years before the marriage,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The Mishna (Shevi’is 10:5; B.M. 72a) teaches that a predated debt document is invalid, whereas a postdated one is valid (C.M. 43:7).
“This is because a debt document signed by witnesses, such as a kesubah, establishes a halachic lien, which enables the creditor to collect real estate sold afterwards by the debtor if he is unable to pay. A predated document can lead to unlawfully collecting from property sold between the predated date and the true one.
“Shulchan Aruch, following Rashi and Rif, rules that the creditor cannot collect at all from sold property based on the invalid document, but he can still collect based on it from the debtor, who is not believed to contradict it. Rema, following Tosafos and Rosh, rules that the document is completely void, so that the creditor can collect only if the debtor admits to the debt (ibid.).
“Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 43:2) rules that if the date ignored the millennia and centuries, and instead of writing (Hebrew date) 5784 wrote 84, the document is valid, since the abbreviation is evident and self-understood. Likewise if he wrote 24 (the English date).
“Rema rules, though, based on Rivash, that if the millennia, centuries, and units were written, but the decades were omitted, the document is invalid, since here the abbreviation/omission is not evident. In the above example, concerning the year 5784, this would mean writing “five thousand seven hundred and four,” omitting the decades, namely eighty.
“Similarly, Terumas Hadeshen (Psakim #11) disqualified a get that omitted the centuries, like our case, 5074. Shulchan Aruch cites a dispute whether the woman needs a new get if she already remarried (E.H. 127:13).
“Beis Yosef questions, though, whether Terumas Hadeshen would also invalidate regular monetary documents that omitted the centuries, or only a get, due to its severity. Rema rules that omission of centuries also invalidates monetary documents.
“Shach (43:5) disputes this, and distinguishes between omission of centuries and decades, since clearly the person was not alive centuries ago, so that the omission is considered evident (Pis’chei Choshen, Shtaros 6:6[13]).
“Thus, our case,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since Rema invalidates the kesubah, you should write a new one.”
Verdict: A predated monetary document signed by witnesses, such as a kesubah, is invalid. If the centuries or decades were mistakenly omitted, Beis Yosef questions whether the document is valid; Rema invalidates it; Shach maintains that omission of decades invalidates it, but not of centuries.
This article is intended for learning purposes and cannot be used for final halachic decision. There are also issues of dina d’malchusa to consider in actual cases.
