BRIDE AND GROOM UNDER THE TALIT

QUESTION:

In the city of Mainz it is not customary to have a couple married under a chupah (the canopy with four poles) . The custom followed is that the groom covers the head of his bride with his talit during the ceremony. Is this custom well founded? How old is it? (Asked by Rabbi Josef Zeitin, San Francisco, California.)

ANSWER:

THE COVERING of the bride with the garment of the groom has a Scriptural basis. In Ruth (3:9) when Boaz awakens on the threshing floor and finds Ruth at his feet, he asks who she is. She tells him that he is her closest kinsman (and therefore should take her to wife). She puts it in this way: “I am Ruth, thy handmaid; spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid, for thou art a near kinsman.”

Similarly, there is a discussion in Kidushin 18b as to why a man who took to his bed his Jewish handmaid may not ever again sell her to anybody else; in other words, that it has to be a permanent relationship with her. The Scriptural text (Exodus 21:8) says the reason is bevigdo bah. This, of course, literally means he has dealt treacherously with her. But Rabbi Akiva makes a play on the word vigdo and says it is to be read as meaning “his garment,” and therefore it means that “since he has spread his garment over her,” she is now married to him (i.e., in the form of yi’ud) . So it is clear that covering with a garment in Biblical and in Mishnaic times was at least one of the ways in which a marriage became legal. Also the Mishnah (in Ketuvot II, 1) which says that the virgin bride goes forth with a henuma is interpreted by some commentators as meaning that she goes forth with a veil over her. In fact, it is quite possible to say that when the law requires that the woman be not formally acquired by her husband without chupah, that the word chupah itself is the root which means “covering,” and therefore chupah can mean a cloth covering, either in the form of a tent, as some scholars say, or in the form of a cloth spread over her, as is implied in the Book of Ruth and in many of the later commentaries. So we can see that the covering of the bride by the groom has strong roots in the past. However, the Tosfot (Sukah 25b) s.v., “En Simcha,” insists that chupah means more than some cloth pavilion. It must mean a permanent dwelling place.

The Talmudic reference in Kidushin 18b in which Akiva says that the spreading of the garment over the servingmaid constitutes “Yi’ud, ” a form of marriage, is of course not a specific reference to a marriage ceremony. Rabbi Akiva simply means that the master has virtually married the maid, and he describes it by the symbolic expression, based upon his pun on the Scriptural verse, that “he spread his cloak over her.” But is there in the literature any reference to a specific ceremony between regular brides and grooms which takes place during the wedding ceremony, in which the groom puts his garment over the bride? There are a number of references to this specific ceremony, but it is important to note the date of the scholars who make reference to it.

The Ittur, which is by Isaac ben Abba Mari (born in Provence, 1122) makes as far as I can find, the first clear reference to the custom of the groom’s covering the head of the bride during the ceremony. His exact words are of particular interest (for your convenience, it is quoted in the Bet Yosef to the Tur, Even Haezer #61; in the Ittur itself, in the 1860 Lemberg edition, II, p. 27b). These are his words: “If one says that chupah means the cloth which they spread over their heads during the blessings, that opinion is of no significance (i.e., he is wrong) because the Talmud Yerushalmi in Sukah says they must enter the chupah, which means of course a specific place which they can enter.”

In other words, Isaac ben Abba Mari, in the twelfth century in Provence, disapproves of the custom, but at all events he already knows of its existence. Now it is evident, in spite of the Ittur’s objection to the custom, it grew in popularity, because Zedekiah Harofe, in his famous code Hamanhig (he lived in Rome and had studied in Germany) makes use of the Ittur, but by now he considers the headcovering to be an established custom. In paragraph 109 he says, “The chupah is so called because he covers (chofeh) her with his talit.” He justifies this interpretation of chupah by quoting, of course, Akiva’s opinion cited above, and adds to it the verse in Ezekiel 16:8: “I will spread my wings over thee and cover thee and bring thee into a covenant.” At all events, this custom, a century after the Ittur., is already a wellestablished custom. In fact, in Provence itself, where Isaac ben Abba Mari lived, Aaron ben Jacob haCohen of Narbonne, who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth century, says directly (edition Berlin, 1902, p. 64) : “And then they make the chupah, which means that they cover them (chofefim) with a talit or a cloth, and that is what is meant by chupah.” He likewise refers to Rabbi Akiva in Kidushin 18b.

The Kol Bo, an anonymous German code which makes use of the Orchat Chayim and, indeed, is considered to be a condensation of the Orchat Chayim, says on page 44c: “Chupah means when they cover them with a talit or with a cloth, and that is what is called nisuin.” Then he gives various verses in justification and one of his verses, as far as I know, was not given by any of his predecessors. He calls attention to the fact that in Deuteronomy 22:12 and 13, there fol low each other in sequence: “Thou shalt put fringes on thy garments,” and the verse, “If a man taketh a wife …” Thus he rather cleverly combines the use of the talit and the marriage ceremony.

This covering the head of the bride with a talit is found, therefore, in references of Provence and in Germany, and has remained as an enduring custom. Even when, in Eastern Europe, the chupah on four poles was instituted, as indicated in my article to which you refer, the custom of the groom covering the bride was retained, but it was transferred to the morning before the ceremony, as is described by Joel Sirkes (Bach) in his important note to the Tur, Even Haezer 61. The German custom of headcovering thus remained in spite of the newer institution of the fourpole chupah. But the fourpole chupah in turn spread westward. If we observe the paintings of Oppenheim, who preserves the picture of West German Jewish life a century and a half ago, we note that in his wedding picture he shows a combination of the customs and the influence of Eastern Europe. The wedding that he depicts takes place in the courtyard of the synagogue, which is according to the recommendation of Isserles of Cracow, and not in the synagogue itself, according to the description given us by Maharil of Mainz. The marriage is under the chupah according to the Eastern Jewish custom, but bride and groom are also covered by the talit according to the Western Jewish custom. Inci dentally, the Maharil in his description has the groom cover the bride with his voluminous wedding hood instead of with the talit.

It is possible to come to a conclusion as to how widespread the custom was to put the talit over the head of the bride and groom at the wedding. It happens that this whole discussion comes up in another place entirely in the law, namely, in the talit laws codified in Orach Chayim #8. There the law concerns the reciting of the blessing over the talit. When is this blessing required and when not required? If, for example, a man is called up to the Torah and borrows a talit for that purpose, must he recite the talit blessing? If a man who is wearing a talit (and had recited the blessing when he put it on) now takes it off for a short time and then puts it on again, is this a new “putting on” of the talit and does it require the blessing again? As related to this discussion, the question arises in the commentaries whether the talit that is put over the heads of the bride and groom at a wedding requires the talitblessing by the groom. There are two discussions of it. The first is in the Be’er Hetev (Judah Ashkenazi of Tiktin, first half of the eighteenth century in Poland) who says as follows: “In places where they are accustomed to throw the talit over the bride and groom . . .” In other words, his language implies clearly that this is not a custom in Poland, but elsewhere. More directly is the discussion in the Pitche Teshuvah (Chayyim Mordecai Margolis of Dubnow, Russia). He says: “I will discuss the matter only briefly because this is not the custom in our provinces.”

When, however, we look up the references cited in these commentaries, we find that the custom, although it did not prevail in Eastern Europe, did prevail in many lands. Jacob Reischer in Metz (died in Metz, 1733) in Shevut Yaakov, II, 23, speaks of it as the regular custom in his city. Earlier than that Abraham ben Mordecai Halevi, rabbi in Egypt at the end of the seventeenth century, speaks of the custom in Egypt, although there the talit was put over their heads before the marriage blessings when they were seated facing each other on two opposite benches. Still earlier, Chayyim Benvenisti (born Constantinople, 1603) in his Sheyare Kenesset Hagdolah, 8:5, discusses the question of whether the groom must recite the blessing for putting on the talit, but clearly indicates that the use of the talit to cover bride and groom during the wedding ceremony was an established custom in Constantinople and in Smyrna. The latest reference I have seen on this matter is in Vaya’an Shemuel (Orach Chayim #12) by Samuel Marciano, a contemporary rabbi in Morocco. He also speaks of this as an established custom.

So we see that except for Eastern Europe, where we can conclude that the chupah on four poles supplanted the custom of covering the head of bride and groom with a talit, the custom of so covering the heads is widespread, being found in Western Europe, North Africa, Egypt (with some variation), Constantinople, and Smyrna.

To sum up: We see, thus, that the idea of the groom covering the bride with a garment is ancient in essence, but as a specific part of the wedding ceremony the first reference is by the Ittur, who already knows of the ceremony but disapproves of it. Then we note that the later scholars approve of the ceremony and justify it with Biblical verses; and even in Eastern Europe, where the chupah as canopy was substituted, the cover-ing of the bride was preserved, but put forward to take place before the ceremony. Therefore we cannot say that this was an ancient ceremony going back as far as the Bible or Talmud, but we may say with justification that it is certainly an early medieval ceremony, fully in consonance with ancient moods, and one that has not entirely disappeared.