Question: The accepted minhag is to be mekadesh [betroth] a woman with a plain ring, without any stones, so that the kallah knows precisely the value of the ring and the item with which she is being mekudeshes, avoiding any possible misunderstanding about its worth. However, an incident occurred where a couple used a ring with diamonds. Is it necessary for them to repeat the kiddushin?
Answer: The Rema (Even HaEzer, 31:2) writes that one should not be mekadesh a woman with a diamond ring, based on the opinions of Rabbeinu Tam and the Ran. The reasoning is that even if he was mekadesh her without specifying—and he did not say, “Be mekadesh yourself with this ring which is worth fifty zuz”— there is still concern that the kallah might mistakenly assume the diamond is worth much more than its actual value. Therefore, we are concerned that she might have only agreed to be mekudeshes under this mistaken impression, and without it, she might not have agreed at all. This would render the kiddushin invalid due to kiddushei taus [mistaken, or misled, kiddushin]. Therefore, it is considered a safek kiddushin [doubt whether kiddushin took place] that requires repeating the kiddushin. See further in Otzar HaPoskim (31:14) who cites many Achronim on this topic.
However, the Pischei Teshuvah (31:4) quotes R’ Yaakov of Lisa (author of Nesivos HaMishpat and Chavas Daas), who writes that in modern times, since kallah’s have their faces covered and cannot see the ring, the concern of overestimating the ring’s value does not apply, and thus the kiddushin is valid. Similarly, other Acharonim have written in this vein.
If the chosson informs the kallah and the Rav beforehand that he intends to be mekadesh her with a diamond ring, lechatchilah, this should be prevented. However, bedieved, the kiddushin is valid, especially today when the mesader kiddushin asks the witnesses if the ring is worth at least a perutah and the kallah hears and consents. And if he states that she should be mekadesh herself with a perutah, the kiddushin is certainly valid.
We may suggest yet another reason to validate the kiddushin in such a case, based on a discussion in the poskim regarding a case where a chosson purchased a ring under the assumption that it was pure silver, only to later discover it was merely silver-plated. Despite this error, leading poskim have ruled that there is no need to repeat the kiddushin, even though the chosson might have voided the purchase had he known beforehand. This is because we assume the chosson does not want the marriage invalidated post-facto, since this would retroactively render his intimacy into illicit relations (oseh be’ilaso be’ilas z’nus). See Kovetz Beis Dovid (Choshen Mishpat, p. 250), where Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein cites Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l on this question.
Furthermore, even if the chosson intends to return the ring to the seller, some poskim argue that there is no need to repeat the kiddushin. This is because the seller is required, according to Choshen Mishpat, to refund the payment for a pure silver ring, and the chosson is essentially holding the ring as a mashkon [collateral]. Accordingly, when he gives the kallah this mashkon, he is being mekadesh her with the collateral that he has on others, which is a valid form of kiddushin. Additionally, there is no concern about the kallah being misled, as the witnesses confirm the ring’s value of at least a perutah in her presence, which demonstrates her intent to accept the kiddushin even if the ring is only worth a perutah.
For further discussion, see Teshuvos Keneh Bosem (1:120) and Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (4:292).
