CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
134. Times When Weddings Should Not Take Place
(Vol. XXIII, 1913, pp. 179-180) Ritual questions of another nature brought before us most frequently are those concerning weddings, and I shall first touch upon those that have the least religious significance, viz., the days when no weddings should take place. (1) The so-called Omer or Sefira weeks, still observed by the Orthodox Jews in accordance with the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 493, have been treated by Dr. Landsberger of Darmstadt in Geiger’s Jued. Zeitschrift VII, 81-96, who shows them to have been originally identical with the May weeks in French, Scottish, and English custom, while they have their parallel (if not their origin) in ancient Roman superstition, or rather mythology. They came up for discussion and were abrogated at the Augsburg Synod.1 It is strange, however, that many Jews in America who have long since forgotten the Jewish custom with its supposed reason (the legendary death of the 12,000 pupils of R. Akivaduring these weeks), observe instead the English custom of not marrying in May, which ought to be denounced as an ancient heathenish superstition. (2) The so-called Three Weeks between the seventeenth day of Tamuz and the Ninth of Av, commemorative of the destruction of Jerusalem, on which weddings are prohibited in the later codes2 were also declared by the Augsburg Synod to have no longer any prohibiting character for us. And they need all the less be mentioned by me, as even the Memorial Day of the Destruction of Jerusalem (which ought to be observed in some form in our service, if only on the Sabbath preceding the same) remains unnoticed in our Reform Temples. (3) There is, however, a simpler custom found in certain Jewish circles, the existence of which I learned only in New York some forty years ago, and I suspect it to be of Portuguese origin, viz., to have no wedding ceremony performed during the Penitential Days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. It seems to be based on a wrong conception of the Penitential Days, which are nowhere regarded as gloomy,3 and it is altogether contrary to the Jewish law of marriage, which is a mitzvah–a sacred command that should not be postponed except on Sabbath and Holy Days when all juridical or legal actions are forbidden.4 (4) As to the half-holy days (Chol Hamo-ed) on which the Mishnaic code expressly prohibits marriages5–our Reform rabbis never felt that they bear a festive character which would have the rule applied that there should be no combination of two different festivities (“Ein me-arevin simcha besimcha”).K. Kohler and D. NeumarkSee also:S.B. Freehof, “Weddings and Other Ceremonies on Hoshana Rabba,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 170ff; “Wedding on the Ninth of Av,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 173ff.NOTES1. See Philipson’s Reform Movement, p. 439.2. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 551.2, Isserles’ note: Only 1-8 Av, based on the baraita Bab. Yev. 43b.3. Philipson, ibid.4. Beitsa 36b.5. Mo-ed Katan 8b.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.