Responsa

NARR 132-133

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

84. Red Wine or White Wine

QUESTION:At a recent wedding the groom insisted that red wine be used, while the bride afraid that some of it might spill demanded white wine. Does our tradition have a preference? (Daniel Jacob, Pittsburgh PA)

ANSWER: Discussions of red wine or white wine goes back to the days of the Talmud and the use of wine in the service at the Temple. The debate also dealt with the question whether various kinds of white wine boreq or hivrin were appropriate. Boreq was generally rejected except bediavad. While hivrin was considered acceptable as it was akin to red wine which was considered to be stronger and better (B B 97a ff and commentaries). The Tosfos who lived in the wine producing provinces of France considered hivrin as white and therefore not acceptable. There was, therefore, a general preference for red wine (Tur Orah Hayim 472 and Commentaries). Yet, even Jacob ben Asher felt that if the white wine was superior to the red wine it should be used. Earlier Simon ben Zemah of Duran indicated that both red and white wines were acceptable on the altar at the ancient Temple as well as for qiddush (Tashbetz Responsa #85). Joseph Caro in the Shulhan Arukh provided us with a decision which went in both directions. When discussing the ordinary qiddush, he indicated that white wine was acceptable (Orah Hayim 272.4). On the other hand when he discussed wine for the Seder his preference was for red wine (Orah Hayim 472.11). The commentaries on this passage provide a caution and warn that red wine be avoided in those places where the accusation of blood libel had occurred.

As one can see from these traditional discussions as well as from responsa not cited, either type of wine is appropriate; tradition would simply state that the best wine should be used.

November 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 410-411

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.

NARR 341-343

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

214. Siberian Wedding

QUESTION: A couple recently emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union and have asked whether they need a Jewish wedding ceremony. They were married in a Siberian prison camp simply by declaring their intent to marry each other. Two Jewish witnesses were present, they exchanged a small object of value, but there were no written documents and no traditional ceremony. (Sylvan Schwartz, Miami FL)ANSWER: There are three ways of effecting a marriage: (a) The most common form featured a document witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The document is the modern ketubah signed by two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of presenting a ring with the formula “harei at mequdeshet…” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27.1); a minyan was required from the Middle Ages onward to avert some specific problems. Yet a marriage is valid bediavad without a minyan. (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1). The last method was severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is valid. Marriage simply through intercourse with proper intent would be akin to “common law” marriage. In this case we have a couple who lived together with the intent of marriage. They were both adults and knew what they were doing. They sought to make it as Jewish as possible by transferring an item of value in the presence of two adult Jewish witnesses. Since that time they have lived together as man and wife both in the Soviet Union and now in the United States; nothing further is necessary. If they wish to participate in one of the numerous communal “Jewish weddings” created for the benefit of Russian Jewish immigrants in various American cities, that is fine, but such a ceremony is not essential for their marriage to be Jewishly recognized.September 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 398-401

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

130. Rabbi’s Prerogative to Officiate at Weddings

(Vol. LXV, 1955, pp. 85-88)

QUESTION: May cantors perform Jewish marriage services without an ordained rabbi presiding over the ceremony?

ANSWER: Basically, a Jewish marriage ceremony may be described as informal. A man, theoretically at least, can marry simply by cohabitation with a woman he wants to be his wife (bi-a). Moreover, even in the more regular type of marriage, if a man lives in a small village in which there is no Minyan of Jews available, he can marry without the recitation of the seven blessings. If, then, the whole procedure is basically so informal, it would stand to reason that anybody can perform the ceremony. In fact, the literature is full of reference to the Mesader Kiddushin, “The performer of the marriage,” who–as is clear from the discussion in the various responsa–is not a rabbi. This point of view (namely, that anybody can perform the ceremony, provided–of course–that he performs it correctly) is stated quite plainly in the famous responsum by Isaac bar Sheshet in Spain in the 14th century. This is in his Responsum #271, in which he is astonished at the new furor over “ordination” in France. The case came to him about a man who claimed to be the duly ordained Chief Rabbi of France, and who declared that the religious ceremonies performed by his rival are invalid. Isaac bar Sheshet is puzzled by this Franco-German emphasis on a so-called ordination, and says that if the ceremony or the documents (in the case of a divorce) are correct, on what ground can anyone dare to declare them invalid? Whenever this “open door policy” is mentioned in the law, reference is always made to this responsum of bar Sheshet (as, for example, in the note of Isserles to Yoreh De-a 242.14).

However, this unlimited permission was long abandoned in the Ashkenazic lands, and Isserles in the note referred to says, “and some say [with Isserles, “some say” usually means a weighty opinion] that he who has not been ordained as a Morenu but nevertheless gives divorces and Chalitsot, the documents are invalid. Some, however, are lenient on the matter [and he again refers to bar Sheshet].”

It is clear that in the Ashkenazic lands the tendency was strong to restrict the permission of officiating in divorces and marriages to ordained rabbis and indeed to the chosen rabbi in the locality. There are two main reasons for it. One might be described as professional privilege and the other as technical ability.

We mention the historically later reason first, namely, the emphasis on professional privilege. There are two opinions of the most important authorities of the 18th century. Ezekiel Landau in Prague (Noda BiYehuda, vol. 2, #83) speaks of a case in which the local rabbi disappointed the family and neglected to come to the marriage and someone else presumed to officiate. He says that from the point of view of the prevailing custom no one else (but the regular rabbi) may officiate at the wedding. Moses Sofer of Pressburg in his responsa (Yoreh De-a, #230), discussing the fees from weddings, etc., finds it necessary to explain an opinion of Israel Isserlein of the 15th century, who, in discussing the dispute between two rabbis, said that he was ashamed that we take fees for such mitzvot. On this Moses Sofer makes a pertinent statement. He says that the situation is now different from what it was in those days. In the days of Isserlein the rabbi was not engaged by the community. He had other means of livelihood, and he settled where he wished. Since he was in this status (we would say an amateur), he could not object if another rabbi settled in the same community or if someone else officiated at weddings, etc. But nowadays, says Moses Sofer, a rabbi is engaged like a workman by the community, and the fees from weddings, etc., are part of his agreed upon income. Therefore, anyone who comes in and takes these away from him commits actual robbery, as one would in taking away the livelihood of any other workman.

However, there is a deeper ground than professional privilege for the strong objection in the Ashkenazic lands against non-rabbis officiating, and that is rooted in the field of technical and legal competence. This goes back to a statement found a number of times in the Talmud (see B. Kiddushin 6a), namely, that “He who does not understand thoroughly the nature of marriages and divorces shall have no dealings (esek) with them.” Rashi there comments that this statement means that he who is not expert shall make no decisions on marital problems when and if consulted. But the later respondents say that Rashi did not mean to restrict his interpretation of the Talmudic statement merely to the making of legal decisions on marital problems. The word esek (dealings) means that the unskilled may not even officiate at marriages, etc. This is the opinion of Jacob Reischer of Metz, 16th-17th century (see his Shevut YaakovIII, 121). So, too, Jacob Weil, a century earlier, said that no one should officiate unless he received special permission from the rabbi. If he did not get such authorization, the divorce, for example, which he gave in the case discussed, is invalid (see his Responsum #85).

The strongest reference is in Keneset Yechezkel (Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, in Altona, early 18th century), which declares that it is a decision (takana) coming from the old rabbis of France and Rabbenu Tam himself, that no one should officiate except the one who is chosen to be the rabbi of the community. This makes clear the statement by Zvi Hirsch Eisenstaedter in his Pischei Teshuva to Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 49.3, in which he says, “therefore not in vain have they become accustomed in these generations not to officiate at weddings without the permission of the rabbi.” See also Shevut Ya-akovIII, 121, cited above, in which Reischer says that the custom is spread in all the regions of Israel to appoint a rabbi and that no marriages and divorces take place without the knowledge of the rabbi, i.e., he must give consent to all marriages.

A very strong opinion on this question is given by Joseph Saul Nathanson, Rabbi of Lemberg, in his Sho-el Ueshiv III, A, 239. He says, addressing the rabbi: “No one has permission to officiate at marriages and divorces other than you, the rabbi, and thus to hurt your income, and [since the community has given you that right to officiate], it is obvious that the marriages performed by someone else are void.” Shalom Mordecai Schwadron (MaharshamI, 160) agrees that such marriages should not be performed, but that if they are performed, they are not void, since the recital of the blessings themselves is essential.

It is clear that the varied experiences of the Jews in Northern Europe, in France, Germany and the Slavic lands, led them–for the reasons given above–to restrict the right to marry to the duly selected rabbi. Isserles, in the note to Yoreh De-a 242.14, speaks indeed of the possibility of giving the title Morenu to someone and enabling him to officiate, even though our ordination is not comparable in strictness to the ancient ordination. But generally it is clear that only the rabbi–or someone else, by his express commission in each specific ceremony–could officiate at marriages and divorces.

This general principle, it seems to me, should apply in our Reform Jewish life likewise. While our Reform rabbis are not as strict as Orthodox rabbis have been on the question of divorce and Chalitsa, yet with regard to marriage, conversion, etc., we have in many ways even stricter standards of instruction, inquiry, etc. We are correct, therefore, in following the tendency of traditional law, and saying that the performing of marriages is professionally, technically, and spiritually the exclusive function of the rabbi. In specific cases it may be possible for the rabbi who approves a certain marriage but cannot himself officiate to give permission to a cantor to officiate for him. But that must never serve as a general commission to officiate at all marriages, but only as a permission for a specifically approved marriage. This is no time in the history of marriage and morals for us to take any steps to lessen the solemnity, dignity, and impressiveness of marriage.

Solomon B. Freehof

See also:

S.B. Freehof, “Marriage Without Rabbi or Hebrew,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 200ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 287-288

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

193. Some Questions on Wedding

Procedures

QUESTION: Must the ketubah be signed prior to the

ceremony? May the bride and groom see each other prior to the wedding in order to perform the

ceremony of bedecken? Is there any objection to guests rising as the bride enters in the

processional? Is this a Jewish custom? (Rabbi B. Lefkowitz, Taunton, MA)ANSWER:

The ketubah must be written before the wedding ceremony (Ket. 82b; Shulhan

Arukh Even Haezer 61.1; P. Dykan, Dinei Nisuin V’gerushin, pp. 134 ff). It must be

signed by two witnesses who will be present for the ceremony. Normally the witnesses also sign

it immediately prior to the ceremony. But as far as I know, there would be no objection to their

signing it following the ceremony, after they have actually witnessed it. As the ketubah

deals with the obligations which the groom and bride assume upon marriage, they must sign it

beforehand, but need not see each other at that time. Now let us deal with the custom

of bedecken. This minhag was already mentioned in the Mishnah (Ket. 2.1)

and also found in later books of minhagim (Liqutei Mahari 3.130; Minhagei

Yisrael, p. 360; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 31.2; Isserles, etc. ) This custom is

optional and need not be undertaken even in an Orthodox ceremony. If done, it would take place

just before proceeding to the huppah. As that time the groom places a veil over the

bride’s face. This is usually done in the families’ presence. As this act forms an immediate

prelude to the ceremony under the huppah, it could be designated as the beginning of the

ceremony. The bride and groom would see each other at that moment and then proceed to the

huppah. It should be noted that there is nothing in Jewish custom or law which prohibits

the bride from seeing the groom on the wedding day as long as they are

chaperoned. As far as the assembled individuals rising when the bride enters, I have

not heard of this custom, nor is it mentioned in any books of minhagim available to me.

There is no harm in doing it, but why bother?April 1982

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 351-352

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

221. Orchestra at a Wedding

QUESTION: My synagogue seeks to establish some rules concerning weddings and other festivities. Is it appropriate to engage an orchestra for weddings? I presume that it makes no difference whether the musicians are Jewish or Gentile. (Bruce L. Klein, Philadelphia PA)ANSWER: Rules such as your congregation contemplate are important in our continuing attempt to restrain extravagance. Many efforts at sumptuary regulation have been made through the centuries (Jacob R. Marcus The Jew in the Medieval World pp 193 ff; I. Abraham Jewish Life in the Middle Ages pp 295 ff; L. Löw Die Lebensalter; Louis Finkelstein Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages). These regulations were designed to curb extravagant displays which were wasteful and often aroused the jealousy of non-Jewish neighbors. Policy decisions, therefore, on the nature of festivities such as Bar/Bat mitzvah, weddings, etc., held in the synagogue are very much in keeping with tradition. Music has been reported at Jewish weddings from ancient times (Midrash Rabbah Gen 23.50). Although nothing was said about the nature of the music or the musicians, during the Middle Ages we hear of non-Jews playing at weddings and for that matter even being hired specifically to play on the shabbat of a wedding week (Mordecai to Alfasi Betzah 5). The practice was cited favorably by later authorities (Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 338.1 ff). There were, of course, those who disagreed with this practice and tried to stop it, but as it was exceedingly popular it proved difficult to halt (Radbaz Responsa #6, #132; “Maarehet Hatan Vekalah” Sedei Hemed #13). There is a long tradition of engaging non-Jewish musicians for a wedding. Nothing is said about the number of musicians or even the nature of their music, however, the sumptuary regulations which appeared often in the past would encourage us to keep such music within the boundaries of good taste.October 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 345-347

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

217. Wedding on Yom Hashoah

QUESTION: May weddings be conducted on the Holocaust Memorial Day (Yom Hashoah)? (Annette Feinstein, St. Louis MO)ANSWER: Tradition has a long list of days on which marriages are prohibited. Among them are various fast days as well as days of mourning. So, for example, weddings are not conducted from the first of Av to the ninth of Av (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 551.2). Among Central European Jews it has been customary to extend this time to include the period from the seventeenth of Tamuz to the ninth of Av, as the walls of Jerusalem were breached on the seventeenth of Tamuz (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 551.2). As far as other public fast days were concerned there was some controversy. Abraham Gumbiner indicated that a groom is not obligated to fast on a public fast day which was, of course, an obvious indication that marriages were conducted on those days (Magen Avraham to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 551); other authorities decided that the groom should fast on that day, a similar indication. On the other hand, more recent Orthodox authorities tended to be stricter, and Marcus Horovitz felt that marriages should be prohibited in order to get people to take those days seriously once more (Responsa Mateh Levi Vol II #32). Tradition also prohibited the marriages during some days of the Omer period. Yet Joseph Caro indicated that a marriage on the thirty-third day would not lead to any punishment (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 493.1). Isserles and Gumbiner disagreed whether marriages may take place after the thirty-third day of Omer. The reason for these prohibitions during the Omer period is not clearly established. Tradition has stated that we remember a plague which struck the yeshivah of Akiba (Yeb 62b). Yom Hashoah is, of course, a modern commemorative day. As yet there are few traditions connected with it. It has become a major occasion and reminds us of the millions who died during the Holocaust in the middle of this century. It is, therefore, linked with one of the saddest periods in Jewish history. This tragedy is on an equal plane with the destruction of the first and second Temple. It would be inappropriate to conduct a wedding on this day which should be commemorated by all Jews throughout the world.August 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 345

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

216. Weddings on Hol Hamoed and the Ten Days of Repentance

QUESTION: Should a rabbi perform a wedding during hol hamoed or the Ten Days of Repentance? (James N. Pearlstein, Albany NY)ANSWER: Tradition has stated that no wedding should be held during the days of hol hamoed (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 546.1) as we shall not mix one joy with another. However, we have not been particularly strict in this matter as most congregations and most Reform Jews do rather little to celebrate these intermediate days of the festival. We would therefore permit weddings during them. This also was the decision of Kaufmann Kohler early in this century (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #134). There is no prohibition against a wedding during the Ten Days of Repentance (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #135). Jacob Lauterbach provided references; we might add a responsum of David Hoffmann (Melamed Lehoil III #1).May 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 350-351

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

220. Necklace or a Ring at a Wedding

QUESTION: A couple about to be married has asked whether they must use a ring during the ceremony. The bride in this instance cannot for health reasons wear a ring upon her finger. May the groom give her a brooch, necklace or some other item of jewelry? (Nancy Adelson, Pittsburgh PA) ANSWER: The wedding ring is symbolic of the object of value exchanged in order to legalize the wedding. This was one of the ways in which the marriage according to tradition could be entered. The three ways of effecting a marriage cited by the Talmud are: through a document, through money, or by intercourse (Kid 2a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 25.4). (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The deed is the modern ketubah signed by two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of presenting a ring with the formula “harei at mequdeshet….” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1). The last method was severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is valid. Marriage simply through intercourse with proper intent would be akin to “common law” marriage. The transfer of an object of value now usually takes the form of a ring; it is normally plain in order to avoid the problems of determining the precise value of a stone (Kid 9a; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 31.2). Any other object of value may also be used; it need not be in the form of jewelry. A silk garment was considered appropriate according to Rabenu Tam (Tos to Kid 9a). Earlier sources accepted perishables too. A brooch or necklace is perfectly appropriate for the wedding even without health considerations which I have not felt necessary to discuss.December 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 283-284

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

189. A Minyan at a Wedding

Ceremony

QUESTION: Is a minyan required to be present at a

wedding ceremony? (P. L., Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: The traditional requirement

for a minyan is based upon the Talmudic interpretation (Ket. 7b) of Ruth (4.2), “He took

ten men of the elders of the city.” The Talmud felt that they were taken to act as

witnesses. Eight of these may be relatives, and two must be unrelated so that they can attest to

the value of the ring and the propriety of the ketubah. Jacob Moelln (Hilkhot

Nisuin) required two additional witnesses for the ketubah. The assembled witnesses

and relatives could later be called as witnesses in case the legality of the wedding was

questioned. Two witnesses are used for our ketubah in keeping with the

tradition. A minyan provides a more formal and public setting for the wedding (A.

Freimann, Seder Qidushin Venisuin, p. 16; P. Dykan, Dinei Nisuin Vegerushin, p.

29). Medieval authorities repeatedly felt the need for a minyan in order to prevent

misrepresentation and deception (Adret and others; see Freimann, op. cit., pp. 50 f, 102

ff, 160 f). Although every effort to have a minyan should be made, it is not essential that

a minyan be present in keeping with the old tradition that a service can also be conducted

with a lesser number, and it is certainly valid b’diavad (Sof. 10.8; Shulhan Arukh

Even Haezer 34.4). If a minyan is constituted, men and women would count equally in

keeping with our Reform traditions.February 1977

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕