Huppah

TFN no.5751.14 119-121

CCAR RESPONSA

Video Camera Affixed to Chuppah

5751.14

She’elah

Is it permissible to affix a video camera to a chuppah for the purposes of taping the wedding ceremony?

 

Teshuvah

Those who would allow the arrangement might draw on the tradition that it is a mitzvah to rejoice with bride and groom, and that the requested installation of a video camera could be seen as enlarging the couple’s enjoyment. Those who might oppose the installation would draw on the tradition that a religious celebration has certain limits, which render intrusive devices inappropriate.

 

1. The mitzvah to rejoice with bride and groom. It is a mitzvah derabbanan (instituted by the Rabbis) to accompany the couple to the chuppah and to rejoice with them.1 Already in medieval times it became a custom to dance at weddings to the accompaniment of music2—even though such music making was otherwise still prohibited, as a remembrance of the Temple’s destruction.3

 

By analogy, the photographing as well as audio and video taping of the ceremony have become generally acceptable as activities which, by providing happy memories of the event, enhance the wedding joy.

 

It is assumed that the camera is installed in such a way that it does not detract from the chuppah and its symbolism.

 

2. Standards of propriety. Already in ages past, certain limitations were placed upon merry making at weddings.4 The custom of breaking a glass at the conclusion of the ceremony may also be seen as introducing a sober note, as was the earlier habit of placing ashes on the head of the groom, in the spot where he would normally wear his tefillin.5

 

There was also considerable discussion on matters of propriety, as for instance with regard to the lavishness of the wedding and the difficulties encountered when the community’s leaders tried to enforce sumptuary standards.6 In the nineteenth century, the Hatam Sofer expressed the fear that, if the wedding were held in the synagogue, the customary dignity accorded to it might be diminished by excessive gaiety and the possible mingling of the sexes.7 However, R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that the conditions on which the Hatam Sofer had based his decision no longer applied in the contemporary world, and that therefore certain customs and restrictions need no longer be observed.8

 

3. Recording the ceremony. This has become a custom not only in Reform but also in all other synagogues, though one objection to this practice has been raised on halakhic grounds by R. Yitzhak Rudnick. He argues that tapes are frequently erased, and if blessings are recorded on them the Divine Name too is erased, which is forbidden.9 R. Feinstein disagrees and maintains the common practice, because no actual letters are being erased; still he suggests that if erasing does take place, it be done by some automated procedure (akin to the running of Shabbat elevators, etc.).10

4. Affixing the video camera. How do these various arguments apply to our she’elah?

Applying the rules of rejoicing and limits depend on many variables. Usually the rabbi and the congregation arrive at certain standards, especially when the ceremony takes place in the sanctuary.

 

Since such weddings are quite common in the Reform movement it may be assumed that each synagogue has some rules for the participants themselves as well as for decorators, photographers and the like. In many if not most instances, the popping of flash bulbs during the ceremony is forbidden during the ceremony, so that in this regard an unobtrusively affixed camera in the chuppah is an improvement.

 

Still, some are cautious about a blanket permission. They point out that a chuppah, like a kiddush cup, is not just another thing, but an item which partakes of the holiness of the ritual, and that therefore its integrity should be especially safeguarded. In this view, affixing a camera to the chuppah for convenience’s sake is seen as undesirable. Yet others would point to the analogous practice of many Reform (and Conservative) synagogues which place a microphone inside the Ark.

 

A final consideration is privacy. There are moments in life which are unsuitable for recording even though the media frequently offend against ordinary sensitivities as, for instance, when the sorrow of bereaved persons is pictured for all to see. This caution could well apply to the question at issue. The couple are usually turned toward the Ark, away from the congregation, and only those under the chuppah can observe their intimate reactions during the ceremony. To record these may initially be thought of as a good idea, but the couple, when apprised of the implications of such procedures, will frequently opt for greater privacy and agree that some moments are best preserved in memory only.

 

In sum, the rabbi who asks the she-‘elah will have to consider his/her own sense of propriety, as well as the custom of the congregation and the community. Last but not least, the question ought to be raised with the bride and groom. We see no objection per seto the proposed practice.

 

Notes

Rambam, Yad . Hil. ‘Avel 14:1. He derives this from the commandment to love one’s neighbor and, following Hillel (BT, Shabbat 31a), concludes that we should extend this principle to making a wedding a happy occasion. Various commentaries enlarge on this ruling (see, e.g., the Vilna Gaon in his commentary on Sh.A. Even Ha-Ezer 65:1), and include it in the mitzvah of hakhnasat kallah (arranging for a wedding and rejoicing with bride and groom), which the prayer book mentions as a mitzvah that accompanies us into the world-to-come (see. for instance, Gates of Prayer, p.235). See Tur, Orach Chayyim 338: “There is no wedding joy without musical instruments.” The ban is found in TB Gittin. 7a and Sota 48a; Rambam, Yad , Hil. Ta’aniyot 5:14. For a full discussion of musical instruments in the Halakhah, see R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Resp. Tzitz ‘Eliezer, vol. 15, no. 33. See e.g. the comment of Magen Avraham on Sh.A. Orach Chayyim 560:11. For a full discussion, see Prof. Jacob Zvi Lauterbach, “The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Weddings,” in HUCA vol.II., pp.351-380; and R. Solomon B. Freehof, Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 182-188. See R. Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World, pp. 193-197. See especially Resp. Hatam Sofer, Even Ha-ezer, no .98, whose ruling was most likely motivated by his desire to counter-act the spreading custom of Reformers to hold weddings in the synagogue. R. Isaac Halevy Herzog, Resp. Heikhal Yitzhak , ‘Even Ha-‘Ezer II, no 27, decided similarly. Resp. Iggerot Moshe , Even Ha-Ezer, no. 93. Resp. Sedeh Yitzhak, no. 5. Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, I no. 173, and II no. 142.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 347-348

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

218. Hand Held Hupah

QUESTION: Does traditional Judaism have a preference for the hand held hupah or may the hupah be placed in a series of poles held in place by a base? (Laura Pollock, Philadelphia PA)ANSWER: Let us begin by looking at the origin of the hupah and its placement. The hupah was originally the room to which the bride and groom retired after the marriage ceremony in order to consummate the marriage (Psalms 19.7; Sotah 49b; Midrash Rabbah Genesis 114; Yad Hil Ishut 10.10; Tosefot to Sukah 25b and Yoma 13b, etc). Usually this was in the house of the groom. Therefore, the act of bringing the bride to the hupah indicated the transfer of the bride into the groom’s household. This is the generally accepted meaning. Some have considered the ceremony of veiling the bride as hupah for it established a new relationship between bride and groom (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 55.1; Ezekiel Landau to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 342.1; see Taz to Yoreh Deah 342 for a contrary opinion). It is clear that the older usage of the hupah did not refer to the simple canopy now used during wedding ceremonies. This was introduced in the late medieval period, possibly just before the time of Moses Isserles as he mentioned it as something used “nowadays” (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 55.1). The custom itself may have come from the earlier medieval minhag of spreading a talit over the bride and groom during the wedding ceremony, or of the groom simply spreading his tallit over the bride during the ceremony (Hamanhig 91b ff). The placement of our type of hupah within the synagogue has not been accepted by all authorities. Moses Sofer objected to it as a Gentile custom (Hatam Sofer Even Haezer #65). Isserles knew of its use in the synagogue courtyard. We see, therefore, that this symbolic use of the hupah during the wedding ceremony is relatively recent. A hupah may be beautifully embroidered. This has been done through the centuries especially by Sephardic communities. The texts said nothing about any person holding the hupah. It is likely that weddings in small communities, in the courtyard of the synagogue, or in the synagogue itself saw the hupah hand held. When a tallit was used it was probably simply spread over the bride and groom and rested upon them directly. When this led to the use of four poles is not known; this certainly was more practical and possibly more aesthetically pleasing. There is nothing which would demand one pattern or another. The hand held hupah involves four friends of the couple; that may be a positive factor. Of course, they may tire of the task and find it difficult to continue through the entire ceremony.March 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 285-286

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

191. Permanent Huppah

QUESTION:

A sculptor has created a permanent huppah with a brass top simulating leaves and

vines. May this stand as a synagogue ornament, or must it be disassembled between weddings?

(Rabbi J. Glaser, New York, NY)ANSWER: Let us begin by looking at the origin of

the huppah and its placement. The huppah is referred to the room to which the

bride and groom retired after the marriage ceremony in order to consummate the marriage

(Psalms 19.7; Sotah 49b; Gen. Rabbah 114; Yad Hil. Ishut 10.10; Tosfot to Sukah

25b and Yoma 13b, etc.) Usually this was in the house of the groom. Therefore, the act of

bringing the bride to the huppah indicated the transfer of the bride into the groom’s

household. This is the generally accepted meaning; some consider the ceremony of veiling the

bride as huppah, for it established a new relationship between bride and groom (Isserles

to Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 55.1; Ezekiel Landau to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh

Deah 342.1; see Taz to Yoreh Deah 342 for a contrary opinion). In any case, it is clear that the

older usage of the huppah does not refer to the simple canopy now used during wedding

ceremonies. This was introduced in the late medieval period, possibly just before the time of

Moses Isserles, as he refers to it as something used “nowadays” (Shulhan Arukh Even

Haezer 55.1). The custom itself may have come from the earlier medieval minhag of

spreading a talit over the bride and groom during the wedding ceremony, or of the groom

simply spreading his talit over the bride during the ceremony (Hamanhig 91b ff).

The placement of a huppah within the synagogue has not been accepted by all

authorities. Moses Sofer objected to it as a Gentile custom (Hatam Sofer Even Haezer

#65). Isserles knew its use in the synagogue courtyard (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Even

Haezer 61.1). We see, therefore that this new symbolic use of the huppah during the

wedding ceremony is relatively recent. Nowadays, a huppah may be beautifully

embroidered. There would be nothing wrong with having a permanent sculptured floral

huppah. There is nothing in literature which deals with the storage of the

huppah or its placement when not in use. As it mostly consists of a cloth placed on four

staves held by four friends, the question does not arise. Even when placed on poles, there still is

no reason to display it after the wedding. Such work of art may be displayed

permanently. It would be a beautiful addition to the ritual items of a synagogue. Many

synagogues have had a permanent chair for Elijah for use during a berit, so they may

now have a permanent huppah. It would form an appropriate reminder of the

mitzvah of marriage.April 1982

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5755.16 231-236

CCAR RESPONSA

Substitutes for Wine Under the Chupah

5755.16

She’elah

A couple are planning their wedding in the near future. The man has disclosed to me that he is a recovering alcoholic, now six months sober. He is making great efforts to stay away from alcohol. I of course encouraged and supported him. When it came to the wedding ceremony, however, I had to inform him that the use of wine is an integral part of the service. I indicated to him that he could use grape juice instead of wine. He told me that he was so unsure of his sobriety that even grape juice would test his resolve and that he would prefer not to use it. Is there a solution to this problem that will simultaneously preserve the structure of the traditional ceremony yet not hazard his sobriety? (Rabbi Kenneth D. Roseman, Dallas, TX)

Teshuvah

There is no denying the powerful symbolic importance of wine in Jewish observance. In biblical times it was noted that “wine gladdens the human heart” (Psalms 104:15). The Talmud adds that today, in the absence of the Temple and the sacrifices, “there is no joy without wine.”[1] This means that at special festive moments of our lives as Jews we express the happiness we feel through the drinking of wine. We welcome Shabbat with kiddush and bid it farewell with havdalah, both of which are recited over wine.[2] Wine helps us fulfill the mitzvah to rejoice during festivals.[3] We drink four cups of wine at the Pesach seder to celebrate our liberation from bondage.[4] Indeed, wine is so essential at that occasion that “one who does not accustomed to drinking wine because he dislikes it or because it causes him pain should force himself to drink it, to fulfill the mitzvah of the four cups.”[5] At moments of personal joy, such as a wedding and berit milah, the appropriate blessings are recited over a cup of wine. Due to its intrinsic importance, wine receives its own benediction (borei peri hagafen) at those moments, even though we use it for purely ritual purposes and not for consumption.[6]

All the above serves to emphasize both the centrality of wine in Jewish ceremonial observance and the problem which faces the man who is the subject of this she’elah. He wishes to celebrate his great moment of personal joy as a Jew, under the chupah, when the officiating rabbi recites the betrothal and wedding benedictions. But he does not want this ritual to endanger his continuing recovery from alcoholism. For our part, we certainly want to encourage this

man in what will be a life-long struggle against this disease, and we think it would be ironic and tragic were a ritual of the Jewish tradition, which we regard as a source of life, to act as a stumbling block to his recovery. The question, as you note, is one of options: does the tradition require the use of wine or grape juice at a wedding? If it does not, does it offer alternatives for wine under the chuppah so as to maintain “the structure of the traditional ceremony?” Can a

wedding, that is, be conducted without wine and yet remain, in form and feeling, a Jewish wedding? And if such alternatives do exist, which would we consider to be the best one from our Reform perspective?

Is Wine a Requirement at Weddings?

We begin by noting that, although wine plays a central ceremonial role in Judaism, the tradition never establishes the drinking of wine as an absolute ritual requirement no matter how severe its effect upon one’s health. It is well known that the halakhah permits a Jew to set aside almost all mitzvot for the sake of pikuach nefesh, when their performance would endanger one’s life.[7] Moreover, this warrant can apply even when the danger is less than mortal. Wine is an excellent case in point. We find that, although the drinking of four cups at the Pesach seder is a

rabbinically-ordained mitzvah, a person may refrain from drinking wine should it make him seriously ill.[8] The prospective bridegroom, as a recovering alcoholic, has every reason to fear that by consuming wine or grape juice he runs the risk of serious medical consequences. Under Jewish law, therefore, he is in no way required to drink wine under the chupah.

Moreover, wine is not an absolute ritual requirement under the chupah. We utilize two cups of wine at the wedding, one for each of the two distinct legal ceremonies taking place at that time. The betrothal benediction (birkat erusin) is recited over a cup of wine and is thus preceded by borei peri hagafen. The six wedding benedictions (birkat chatanim) are recited over a separate cup of wine; they are preceded, again, by borei peri hagafen, making a total of seven benedictions (hence, the “sheva berakhot”). Suppose no wine is available? The halakhic consensus with respect to both sets of benedictions is that some other alcoholic beverage

(sheikhar) should be used and the blessing shehakol nihyah bidevaro recited. If no intoxicant can be obtained, then according to all opinions the birkat erusin can be recited by itself, without a cup, since wine is not regarded as an indispensable element of the erusin ceremony.[9] Concerning the wedding benedictions, however, there is a dispute. Some say that wine or a suitable substitute is absolutely required, that the sheva berakhot can be recited only “over a cup.”[10] Others, meanwhile, rule that the benedictions may if necessary be recited without any beverage at all.[11] While the Shulchan Arukh follows the more stringent view,[12] the disagreement continues among the later authorities.[13]

Non-Alcoholic Alternatives to Wine.

We have seen that, while some authorities do not require wine under the chupah, others do. Yet even the latter permit the use of sheikhar, an alternative, though alcoholic, beverage. This reflects the halakhic concept of chamar medinah, literally “local wine,” the choicest drink of a particular locality, the beverage “that most people drink” (other than water). Chamar medinah is not necessarily grape wine, yet even so may be used in place of wine in certain ritual settings. Thus, we read that havdalah may be recited over sheikhar if that is indeed the “local wine.”[14]

The question whether such a beverage can be used for kiddush is, again, a subject of dispute.[15] The Talmud speaks of “wine” as a requirement for kiddush.[16] Some do not read this requirement literally. They argue that the sanctification of a holy day surely ought to be performed over the most desirable beverage available, even if this is not grape wine. Others,

however, do read the Talmud’s word yayin as excluding the use of any beverage other than wine. As a means of resolving this dispute, it has become the traditional practice to require grape wine at the evening kiddush which commences the Sabbath or a festival but to permit other beverages for kiddusha raba, the sanctification recited at the noon meal the next day, so long as these beverages are regarded as chamar medinah.[17]

If chamar medinah can be used in place of wine at kiddush (or, at least, kiddusha raba) and at

havdalah, the recitation of which is a Toraitic requirement,[18] then surely it may be used at a

wedding, where the “cup” serves only a customary function and fulfills no biblical or rabbinic mitzvah. And, indeed, those who require that the wedding benedictions be recited “over a cup” permit the use of chamar medinah in place of wine.[19] The question is whether “local wine” must be an alcoholic beverage; the answer, it would seem, is “no.” At least one contemporary Israeli halakhic authority rules that for purposes of the wedding benedictions “pure, fresh citrus juice is considered chamar medinah in the land of Israel.”[20] That is to say, in Israel “the fruit of goodly trees” is as honored as a beverage for consumption as is fermented grape juice. There is every reason to argue that the same is true in America, for here, too, pure fruit juice is regarded in many circles and at many occasions as the beverage of choice.

Reform Considerations.

Tradition, therefore, permits the use of a non-alcoholic beverage as a substitute for wine at weddings. To this, we would add the following note. The halakhic sources discuss this issue in the context of an unusual or “emergency” case where wine is not available. The present situation is a qualitatively different one, and it demands a qualitatively different response. While traditional literature does address the subject of drunkenness, it says little if anything about the disease we call alcoholism. In itself, this is not surprising. Our consciousness of alcoholism, of its medical dimensions and its human tragedy, far outstrips that of former generations. Given that consciousness, it is incumbent upon us to confront this disease directly and openly, and to do whatever we can to aid those who come to us in their struggle for recovery. In our case, a

recovering alcoholic seeks to celebrate his wedding as a Jew, as a full and participating member of the community of Israel. We owe him no less consideration, surely, than we show to the disabled members of our congregations whom we seek actively to bring into the circle of Jewish life and observance.[21] Therefore, while we recognize the real and special symbolic importance of wine in Jewish ritual experience, it is our ethical obligation to emphasize that non-alcoholic beverages are not to be thought of as inferior alternatives to wine for ceremonial purposes. This is a declaration we make in general, in all cases and not just emergency ones, a declaration we state as forcefully as we can.

Notes 

[1] BT Pesachim 109a.

[2] BT Pesachim 106a, on “Remember the Sabbath day…”. Havdalah may be recited over another beverage; see below, on the discussion of chamar medinah.

[3] Deut. 16:14; BT Pesachim 109a; Yad, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:17.

[4] M. Pesachim 10:1, and Rashi ad loc. (99b); SA, OC 472:8 ff.

[5] SA OC 472:10, from Resp. Rashba I, 238. And see YT Shekalim 3:2 (47c): when Rabbi Yonah drank the four cups of wine at the seder, even though the wine would leave him with a headache that lasted until Shavuot!

[6] BT. Berakhot 42a and Rashi, s.v. degoreim berakhah le`atzmo; SA, OC 174:1.

[7] BT. Yoma 85b and Sanhedrin 74a; Yad, Hilkhot Yesodey Hatorah 5:1-3; SA, YD 157:1.

[8] See Mishnah Berurah, OC 472, # 35: one should not drink wine should it cause one “to take to his bed.” The Sha`ar Hatziyun ad loc. explains the reason: we drink wine at the seder to emphasize our liberation, and to cause ourselves illness is hardly “the way of freedom.” See also Arukh Hashulchan, OC 472, #14, and R. Ovadyah Yosef, Resp. Chazon Ovadyah, I, # 4.

[9] SA, EH 34:2. Rav Nisim Gaon, cited in Hilkhot Harosh, Ketubot 1:16, says that the use of wine at erusin is not, properly speaking, an obligation (lav mitzvah min hamuvchar hu).

[10] Rav Nisim Gaon in Hilkhot Harosh loc. cit.; Tur EH 62.

[11] Yad, Ishut 10:4 and Magid Mishneh ad loc.

[12] SA, EH 62:1.

[13] Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel, EH 62:1. The Arukh Hashulchan, EH 62, # 6, requires wine or sheikhar; R. Ya`akov Emden, Siddur Beit Ya`akov, Dinei Birkat Erusin veNisu’in, does not.

[14] BT Pesachim 107a. The precise definition of chamar medinah remains somewhat unclear. Some say that a beverage qualifies as “local wine” only when grape wine is completely unavailable in a particular locale. Others say that when wine is available but can be obtained only with great difficulty, a substitute beverage can be chamar medinah. Still others require only that the grape wine that is available be significantly inferior to the other favored beverage. See Arukh Hashulchan, OC 272, # 13-14.

[15] The leading disputants are R. Asher b. Yechiel, who permits kiddush over chamar medinah (Hilkhot Harosh, Pesachim 10:17), and Rambam (Yad, Hilkhot Shabbat 29:17, and see Magid Mishneh ad loc.), who does not.

[16] BT Pesachim 106a, on Ex. 20:8.

[17] SA OC 272:9, following R. Asher. Isserles ad loc., Turei Zahav, no. 6, and Arukh Hashulchan loc. cit. all note that the prevalent Ashkenazic custom is to say kiddusha raba over an alcoholic beverage other than grape wine.

[18] BT Pesachim 106a. The requirement is to “remember” (zakhor) the Sabbath day, i.e., to declare it holy through words of sanctification. Rambam holds that havdalah is included in this Toraitic requirement to “remember” the Sabbath; Yad, Shabbat 29:1 and Magid Mishneh ad loc.

[19] SA, EH 62:1.

[20] R. Yitzchak Yosef, Sove`a Semachot, 1988, p. 67.

[21] See our responsum 5752.5, on the treatment of the disabled within our communities.