Question:
(1) When the witness or witnesses to a marriage are unable to sign the Kethubbah in Hebrew, is their signature valid in English?
(2) Can any army post or army airfield be designated as the locale of a marriage?
Answer:
(1) The Mishna refers to divorces written in Hebrew and signed in Greek. M. Gittin IX, 8. The Talmud, in b. Gittin 9b, speaks of documents whose witnesses cannot sign their names. The Talmud there suggests a stencil be used for them to fill in, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says that this leniency applies only to divorce. Thus, the law does not specifically give any permission for signature of a Kethubbah in any other language than Hebrew. Nevertheless, in the exigencies of military life where witnesses who can sign their name in Hebrew may not be available, the Committee recommends that the rabbi avail himself of the permission which applies to documents in general and that the rabbi be given the pen by the witness (M'sirath kolmos) (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 45#5) and sign their names for them. (See the specific case of such a signature on the document in the responsa of Solomon ben Aderet Toldoth Adam, Vol II, #III.) Of course the witnesses should be qualified according to Jewish law.
(2) There are objections in the law to divorces being written in certain cities or towns. The objection is generally based upon doubts as to how the name of the city or the river should be written in Hebrew. Such cases are mentioned in Noda Bi'yehuda Vol I. Even Haezer #87 & 88. See especially in 88 about the middle of the responsum: "There are many places in Poland and in other provinces in which divorces are not written because of the doubt of the name and we have never heard that this prohibition to write divorces there was ever annulled," Also Chatham Sofer Vol. II, Even Haezer #37; also Eliezer Deutsch, Peri Hasadeh, Vol. I#53.
The Responsa Committee is not aware of any similar restrictions with regard to writing a Kethubbah. As a matter of fact, in the question asked of Ezekiel Landau in Noda Bi'Yehuda I #87, it is stated that in the city of Pilch where no divorces were written, many marriage documents were written. Moreover, we find discussions of marriages in places that are too small even to gather a minyan. See Solomon Ben Aderet quoted by Karo in Beth Joseph to Even Haezer 62, and see also Ezekiel Landau's interpretation of the opinion of Solomon Ben Aderet (Noda Bi'Yehuda) Vol. I #56 in which he says that even Solomon Ben Aderet, who insists that 10 are required for the marriage blessings, would admit that if he recited the blessings without 10 people being present, the marriage would be valid. Thus it is evident that it is not essential for the marriage to be in a fixed community. See also a discussion of this latter question in Mishp'te Uziel (by Ben Zion Uziel) Vol. II #62. Rabbi Uziel (the present Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Palestine) says that a person who cannot find 10 people shall say just two of the blessings, and at some later date when he comes to a community where he can gather a minyan, he may recite all 7 blessings. Thus it is evident that there are no restrictions as to the size of the city or its permanence as a community with regard to its being mentioned in a Kethubbah. There is no reason, therefore, why Randolph Field should not be written as the place in the Kethubbah.