At a wedding, we designate both eidei kiddushin (witnesses for the kiddushin) and eidei ketubah (witnesses for the ketubah).

However, I haven't really seen the practice of designating eidei nisuin at a wedding except for yichud.

Recall the yichud room is only one opinion of what nisuin is; why don't we designate witnesses for the other opinions? (ie entering the chuppah, covering the kallah's face etc-- see this answer)

Are eidei nisuin required at a wedding?
If so, why aren't they designated/ set aside for all the different options of nisuin like they are for kiddushin and ketubah?

  • 2
    IMSMC we really only view the yichud as the actual nisuin, and the other customs are more of a chumra.
    – Loewian
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 15:03
  • 1
    "A possible practice outcome of viewing the badeken as the chuppa is that according to those opinions that require witnesses for the chuppa, the eidim should witness the badeken as well. Some Acharonim (see Teshuvot Ve-Hanhagot, EH 4:286:7, and Shevivei Eish, Hilkhot Chuppa Ve-Sheva Berakhot 1) mention this stringency and insist that the eidim view the badeken. However, it is generally accepted that be-di’avad, we do not view the badeken as a component of the marriage ceremony." -- etzion.org.il/en/introduction-hilkhot-ishut-year-2
    – Loewian
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 15:09
  • @Loewian thanks! want to write as an answer?
    – alicht
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 15:44
  • 1
    I've seen people designate witnesses for badekin
    – Double AA
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 15:51
  • 1
    – Joel K
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 16:02

1 Answer 1


The simple answer is that the eidei kiddushin witness the chupa, bideken and yichud, which between them constitute nissuin too.

However, there is very convincing argument that nissuin does not require eidim lkiyum. Although by all chaluyos of dovor sh'berva we need eidim lkiyum (like gerushin and kiddushin, and others), there are two reasons why nissuin is different:

1) The Gemara in Kiddushin 65a writes that using the concept of hoda'as baal din k'meah eidim dami, one can circumvent the requirement for eidim, and the Kiddushin would theoretically be valid without eidim. (It is beyond the scope of this answer to explain how the two concept are interlinked). The reason the Gemara gives why this doesn't work is because when it is chav l'acheirim - detrimental to others - the concept of hoda'as baal din does not apply. Kiddushin is considered chav l'acheirim [either because the marriage causes the woman to become forbidden to all others, or because it causes him/her to become forbidden to each other's realtives - see Rashi & Rashba Kiddushin 65). Nissuin, however, is not chav l'acheirim, because both the relatives and the rest of the world are all already forbidden with the Kiddushin.

2) According to some (notably, R' Chaim Solovetzik), the requirement for eidi kiyum is only by a 'chalos ha'adam' (in Achronistic parlance), not by a 'chalos hatorah'. Nissuin is considered a chalos hatorah, and therefore does not require eidim lkiyum.

Therefore, some Poskim (e.g. Or Someach, linked by @JoelK) do not require eidim by Nissuin.

Nevertheless, the Avnei Miluim (37:18) and HaMakneh (EH §50) rule that it is required. The simple reading of the Tosfos Ri Hazaken in Kiddushin 10a is that Nissuin does require eidim.

  • 3
    +1, but maybe you’d consider translating more of the Hebrew phrases here for people who aren’t familiar with them?
    – DonielF
    Commented Jul 8, 2019 at 17:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .