Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Even ha-Ezer/35

Paragraph 1- A man can appoint an agent to marry a woman for him, whether he does so without specifying the woman or whether he does specify the woman. The agent would tell the woman, “you shall be married to so-and-so.” If the man is able to marry the woman himself, however, one is prohibited from using an agent to do so unless he is familiar with her, because he might discover something disgusting in her and be disgusted by her. Nevertheless, even if he is familiar with her, there is a mitzvah for him to marry the woman himself, if possible.

Paragraph 2- An agent can become a witness. Thus, if one appointed two agents to marry a woman on his behalf, he would not need other witnesses. When is this true? Where there is no monetary denial. For example, he married the women with a document, or even if he married with money, but she admits that she received it but claims it was not for marriage purposes. If there is a monetary denial, however, such as where she says she never received the money or a document worth a perutah, her marriage would be uncertain.

Paragraph 3- No witnesses are needed to observe the husband’s appointment of the agent, so long as the agent and husband both admit the appointment is correct. A statement is not referred to as an admission unless it was said in the presence of witnesses, as an admission requires. With respect to the woman’s agent to accept the marriage, however, the appointment must occur in the presence of witnesses. There are those who say the man requires witnesses as well. There are others who say that one should even be stringent in a case where the woman has no witnesses. If there were no witnesses to the marriage and the woman and agent both say she was married properly, and a third party comes and marries her, she would need a get. If there are no witnesses on the matter and the principal denies that he appointed an agent, there are those who say the woman’s marriage would be in doubt, while others say she would definitely not be married, which seems like the primary view.

Paragraph 4- There are those who say that even if the husband did not explicitly appoint the agent but just indicated that he wanted to marry a specific woman, and he told the agent to be the matchmaker, and the matchmaker went and married her on the husband’s behalf without being appointed as an agent, she would be married.

Paragraph 5- There are those who say that if the father explains to the son that he wants to marry a woman on his behalf, and the son was silent, and the father and went and married her, the woman would be married because he was silent due to the embarrassment of his father but did in fact appoint him as agent. In the same case with another person, however, the woman’s marriage would be uncertain.

Paragraph 6- Anyone is valid to be an agent, with the exception of a deaf-mute, imbecile and minor because they do not have the necessary intellect, a gentile because he is not included in the covenant and a slave because the laws of marriage do not apply to him. There are those who say an initial agent can appoint a second agent if he transfers the marriage item that the husband gave him to the second agent. If the husband did not give the agent a marriage item but just instructed the agent to marry her with any money of his choosing, however, the agent cannot appoint another agent. There are those who say that in all cases an agent cannot appoint a second agent. If one sends a letter with a gentile to another Jew in another location that appoints the Jews as an agent for marriage, there are those who say the rule would be the same as the case of a get, which is discussed later in Siman 141. There are others who say that everyone would agree that in such a case she would be biblically married.

Paragraph 7- If a man tells an agent to marry a woman on his behalf in a specific place, and the agent marries her in a different location, she would not be married. The same applies to any other deviation, such as where the man simply told the agent to marry her and the agent married her conditionally, or where the man told the agent to marry her conditionally and the agent married her unconditionally or he deviated from the condition, and the woman would not be married.

Paragraph 8- If the man told the agent, “marry her and she is in such-and-such place,” and he married her in another place, she would be married, because he was not being exact and was just informing the agent where she was.

Paragraph 9- If one appoints an agent to marry such and such woman on his behalf, and the agent went and married the woman for himself, this is the practice of fraudsters, but what has been done is done, so long as he didn’t marry her with the principal’s money, even if the agent told him initially to send him to marry the woman on his the principal’s behalf. If at the time of the marriage, the agent said, “you are married to me,” she would be married to the agent. This only applies where the women heard and fully understood prior to accepting the marriage that he said “you shall be married to me,” because otherwise her intention was to accept the marriage on what he said initially, which is that she is marrying the principal. If the agent erred and said “married to me,” however, there is no room for concern because a marriage in error is not a marriage. The agent is believed to say he erred. There are those who are stringent and require a get.

Paragraph 10- If the woman did not want to marry the principle, and the agent married her himself, that would not be considered fraudulent.

Paragraph 11- If someone tells an agent to marry a woman on his behalf, and the agent died and it is unknown whether he married a woman on his behalf or not, there is a presumption that the agent married someone because there is a presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Because he does not know which woman the agent married for him, he is prohibited to every woman that has relatives that would be prohibited to him, such as a woman that has a daughter, mother, sister or similar relative. If we were to allow the man to marry such a woman, it is possible the agent married this woman’s mother, sister or daughter. He may marry a woman that has no relatives like these. If the woman had a relative, such as a mother, sister or similar, and the relative was married at the time the man appointed the agent, even if the relative was divorced before the agent died, the woman would be permitted. We do not say the agent may have married her relative for him after she was divorced because that woman was not appropriate for him at the time he appointed the agent and a man does not create any agent to marry for him any woman other than those whom he can marry at the time the agency was formed. Likewise, if the relatives come and say we were not married and they went ahead and married, he may marry this woman because the relatives were certainly not married. There are those who say that if he instructed the agent to marry a specific woman and the agent died, he would immediately become prohibited to the woman’s relatives because of the logic that an agent performs his agency. There are those who disagree.

Paragraph 12- If one appoints an agent to marry a specific woman, and the agent went and married her on the principal’s behalf, and the principal then went married that woman’s mother, daughter or sister, and it is unclear which one was married first, they would both need a get and would be prohibited to him.

Paragraph 13- If one appointed an agent and voided the agency prior to the marriage, the voidance would be effective. If it is unknown whether he voided the agency prior to or subsequent to the marriage, the woman’s marriage would be uncertain.

Paragraph 14- One should not void an agency outside the presence of the agent. If he does so, the agency would be void.

Paragraph 15- If the agent was not established to be an agent by witnesses and the agent said he married her for himself, while the woman says she was married to the principal, the agent has the status of one who tells a woman he married her while the woman denies it, in which case he cannot marry her relative and she can marry his relative. The woman has the status of one who told the principal she married him while he denies it. If the woman says she is not sure, the presumption is she married the agent. If the agency was established by witnesses and the agent says he married her for himself and the woman says she married the principal, the presumption is she married the principal, but the agent would still be prohibited to her relatives. If she says she is unsure, both men would give her a get. If they prefer, one can give the get and the other can marry her. There are those who say that even where the agency is established, if the agent says he backed out of the agency, she would not be married to the principal. Likewise, if the agency was not established and the principal says he made the agent into an agent, the principal would be prohibited from marrying the woman’s relatives. Nevertheless, if the agent later retracts and says he thought he was marrying her for himself but now remembers that he married her for the principal, one can rely on the first view. If the agent says he married her on behalf of the principal and she says he did not marry her, the principal would be prohibited to the woman’s relatives on the basis of the agent.