CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
131. A Layman Officiating at a Jewish Wedding
(1979)QUESTION: May the president of a congregation or any other designated layman perform Jewish marriage ceremonies? In South Dakota there are no rabbis except in Sioux Falls, nor is there any rabbi available east or west for hundreds of miles. Under these circumstances, can weddings be performed by an authorized layman? (Mr. Stanford M. Adelstein, Rapid City, South Dakota) ANSWER: The Talmud cited three ways of effecting a marriage–through a document, through money, or by intercourse (Kid. 2a; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 26.4). (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid. 9a; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 32.14). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The deed is akin to the modern Ketuba signed by the 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 giving a ring with the formula “Harei at mekudeshet…” (Kid. 2a, b; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (bi-a) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife and with two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid. 9b; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 33.1). This last method was, of course, severely frowned upon by the Rabbis, but bedi-avad it was certainly valid. Consent was, of course, necessary (Shulchan Aruch, E.H. 42.1). The wedding in Talmudic times was also divided into two segments, Erusin and Nisu-in; the latter often took place up to a year after Erusin. In the Middle Ages, both parts of the marriage ceremony were united, as mentioned by Simhah of Vitry, 11th century (Machzor Vitry, pp. 587f). In the Eastern lands, this union of the two ceremonies already occurred in Gaonic times (Otsar Hage-onim, Yev. 381). It is clear from these statements that Talmudic law did not stipulate the presence of a rabbi, nor did it, in this connection, mention many other matters which have later become important (e.g., Minyan, Chupa, etc.) The matter of who may actually conduct the ceremony was hardly discussed, though there is a reference in the apocryphal book Tobit to the father conducting the ceremony which united the couple (Tobit 7:12). Among the Samaritans, the priest participated in the ceremony, but we do not know how ancient this practice may be (Mann, Texts, vol. II, p. 184). It seems that in earliest times any knowledgeable individual could conduct the ceremony (Kid. 6a, 13a). A little later, emphasis was placed on having a Minyan present, so that the ceremony was conducted in public, and, therefore, could not be taken lightly as was possible before merely two witnesses at home (Ket. 7b). Some Geonim suggested that the groom might be considered as one of the ten in order to make the Minyan a little easier (Otsar Hage-onim, Ket. 7b). Furthermore, the same Gaonic text stated that if no one sufficiently expert to pronounce the blessings was available, then the groom himself might pronounce them for himself. As the Jewish legal system in the entire Near East developed, the Nagid (head of the community) was given judicial powers, including the appointment of rabbis to various cities and towns within his jurisdiction. They supervised the religious life throughout the land, including marriages. Eleventh and twelfth century documents show this clearly (Abraham Freiman, Seder Kiddushin Venisu-in, p. 22ff). Maimonides, therefore, decreed that there could be no marriage or divorce except by an ordained rabbi within the Jewish community (Maimonides, Responsa, 156). By the 14th century, this practice had spread to Europe and was subsequently generally accepted (Maharil, Hil. Nisu-in). In the succeeding centuries rabbinic involvement in weddings has become virtually automatic. Thus, it has been customary for a rabbi (or occasionally a cantor) to officiate at weddings for the last six centuries, and it would be wrong to change that practice nowadays, especially with the ease of transportation from one place to another. A rabbi five hundred miles away is today no more distant than was a rabbi in the nearby town for our Polish or Russian ancestors a century ago. A rabbi should be asked to perform such weddings. The reason for the insistence that rabbis officiate at weddings, of course, involved much more than the ceremony itself and was already indicated by R. Judah. He said in the name of Samuel (Kid. 6a) that those who are not well acquainted with the procedures of weddings and divorce should not deal with them; this means the ability to deal with all the ramifications of marriage, which include pre-nuptial counseling, as well as the ability to counsel afterwards. It would extend to assistance in the establishment of a Jewish home, which would be even more important in a remote area than in large Jewish centers. It would also involve, in such a location, more assistance with the ceremony itself and the nuances involved with weddings. We must, of course, also insist that the requirements of the State in which the ceremony is to be performed must always be met; and many, though not all, insist on ordained clergy.Walter Jacob, ChairmanStephen M. PassamaneckW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.