Kiddushin - Jewish male actor saying "harei at..." to a Jewish female actor (in Shtisel or anywhere else)

Question

In Season 2 of Shtisel (episode 04 or 05), a young boy (Hanina) marries a 15-year-old girl (Ruchami) in a cholent shop before 2 kosher eidim (witnesses) by reciting "Harei at mekudeshet li." (I think he also gives her a ring.)

The actors, Yoav Rotman and Shira Haas, are both Jewish, as far as I can tell.

In the show, the couple are now officially married because he's fulfilled the minimum requirement for Kiddushin. But when I explained this to one of my kids, she said, "What about the actors? Doesn't that mean they're married now in real life???"

I'm genuinely quite curious... thanks!

Answer 1

Shulchan Aruch (EH 42:1) provides one of the criteria for Kiddushin - halachic marriage - 'אין האשה מתקדשת אלא לרצונה'; a woman cannot become married without her consent. Assuming that her intentions are for staging a movie but not actual marriage, there would be no halachic marriage.

However, the Rema adds an important caveat for staged marriages:

הגה: אמרה תחלה קדשני וזרק קדושין לתוך חיקה ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת לי, ונערה בגדיה תוך כדי דבור להשליך ממנה הקדושין, ואומרת שלא כונה מתחלה רק לשחוק בעלמא, אפילו הכי הוי מקודשת (תשובת מוהר"ם סוף ספר נשים). ואין הולכים בענין קדושין אחר אמדנות והוכחות המוכיחות שלא כונה לשם קדושין (שם).

The Rema writes that even when the woman had no intention for Kiddushin and 'played along' for שחוק - just for gags - the Kiddushin is valid, because דברים שבלב לא הוי דברים. Even if there are contextual hints ['אמדנות והוכחות'] that she didn't intend for Kiddushin, it would still be valid. Accepting the Rema at face value, the marriage between the actors would be valid.

However, the Poskim qualify the ruling of the Rema so that it isn't applicable in all cases. Here are some reasons the ruling of the Rema wouldn't apply:

• The Rema discusses where the woman was attempting to prank, but the man was serious. According to Biur HaGra (and the original ruling of Maharam Rottenberg), the chumra is based on itsa bkol d'hu nicha lkiddushin; this does not apply to the mekadesh.

• According to many Poskim (see Otzar Poskim 42:11:5; Igros Moshe EH 82, Chazon Ish EH 52:3), if the circumstances were clearly staged and evident to the witnesses that it was not intended to be valid, it wouldn't be דברים שבלב either, and the Kiddushin would not be valid.

Additionally, the ruling of the Rema and Maharam miRotenberg was always only an added chumra due to the severity of eishes ish.

Of course, there are other reasons the above scenario may not constitute a halachic marriage.

• If either party would have declared in front of witnesses that they have no intention to marry, then the moda'ah would invalidate the subsequent kiddushin.

• If the ring did not belong to the mekadesh, the kiddushin would be invalid. [This would be true even according to Shulchan Aruch (28:19) that Kiddushin is valud if one borrows a ring with the specified intention to perform a Kiddushin with it; I think that would not apply when the lender doesn't think the Kiddushin is intended to be valid].

• If the witnesses are not Kosher, there is no Kiddushin. [It's beyond the scope of this answer to provide a full treatise of who is a valid witness. Noteworthy for discussion is whether irreligious Jews would count as valid witnesses if they are tinok shenishba]

Answer 2

There is the possibility that in real life "Ruchami" is a married woman, in which case "Hanina's" play-acting cannot be valid. Otherwise, the point made above about the ring not belonging to him is an extremely valid point. As to the point mentioned above about the actors not caring as they aren't religious. They might not mind (who says?), but if this "marriage" would be considered a real kidushin, and then the real "Ruchami" would get married to someone else and have children, those children would be mamzerim, which is something we definitely have to be aware off, especially as we all hope they would at one stage in their life, do Tshuvah!