THE BRIDE’S VEIL

Nowadays, it is customary for a bride who is married for the first time to wear a veil. Widows and divorcees who are remarried do not wear a veil. Does this custom, which is common to Jews and Christians, have any basis in Jewish traditional law? (From J. S.)

THERE is mention in the Bible of a bride being veiled (Genesis 24:65). We are told that Rebecca was traveling from Padan Aram to Canaan to be married to Isaac. When they approached the residence of Abraham in Canaan, they saw a young man and Rebecca asked who he was. When she was told that this was Isaac, whom she was going to marry, Scripture simply says: “She took the veil and covered herself.” Thus it well may be that the custom of a bride veiling herself is very ancient in Jewish tradition.

In the Talmud (b. Kesubos 17a) where it speaks of rejoicing, dancing, etc., in the presence of a bride, Rabbi Samuel ben Nachman says that it is permitted to gaze on the face of the bride. But the Talmud adds curtly that the law is to the contrary. In other words, it is forbidden to gaze in the face of the bride. While this discussion may refer to the celebrations after the ceremony, the later authorities dealing with the matter applied that rule, also, for before the ceremony. Asher ben Yehiel in his compendium says of this passage that one may not look upon the face of the bride, but only upon her ornaments. Thus is the law transmitted in the codes. The Shulchan Aruch, in Even Hoezer, 65:2, simply states the law: “One may not look on the face of the bride.” Isserles adds the note (following Asher ben Yehiel): “We may, however, look upon her ornaments.”

Joel Sirkes, in the Bach to the Tur (Even Hoezer 61) reports a widespread custom in Russia of a solemn marriage ceremonial, with the veil put on the bride on the morning of the ceremony by the groom and the rabbi. From all this it is clear that the brides must have been veiled since earliest times. It stands to reason that if a ceremony, such as this one of veiling the bride, lasts as long as this seems to have lasted, it must have rooted itself in more than folk custom, and must have become embodied as part of formal law. Yet, while it is a fact that there are no definite prescriptions in the law requiring that the bride be veiled, and while it is mentioned generally only as a custom, nevertheless, a closer consideration of the legal tradition will indicate that the veil had a definite relationship, not only to the social, but also to the strictly legal side of the marriage contract and ceremony. The law is clear that when a bride enters the chuppah, she is then definitely the wife of the groom. It makes no difference, then, whether sexual relationship takes place immediately or for some reason is delayed. In the legal phrase, the chuppah “acquires” and she is now a wife (Tosfos to Yoma 13b).

The difficulty, however, is that it is not clear what is meant by the word “chuppah. ” The present form of the chuppah, a sheet of cloth held up by four posts, is not ancient. Isserles, who mentions this canopy in Even Hoezer 5 5: 1, gives four explanations of the word “chuppah, ” and these four cover the whole variety of its meanings in the legal literature. His note is worth citing as a summary of the various meanings. He says: “Some say that ‘chuppah’ means when the groom brings the bride to his house for the purpose of marriage. Some say that the chuppah is the spreading of a cloth over the head of both bride and groom when the blessings are recited. Some say that the chuppah of a virgin is when she goes forth (from her father’s house) with the henuma (which was a veiled litter or sedan chair or else a face veil).” And then he adds: “But the custom has spread nowadays to use the word ‘chuppah’ for the cloth which we spread on four staves, under which the bride and groom are brought and the blessings recited.”

It is evident that since Isserles speaks of “a custom widespread nowadays,” he is describing a fairly new custom, and it is also clear that there were older meanings of “chuppah” which transfers the authority of the bride from her father to her husband. The Tosfos to Yoma 13b referred to above says that the chuppah refers to when the bride goes forth with the henuma. The henuma mentioned in M. Kesubos II, 1, is generally translated to mean a veiled litter or sedan chair, in which the bride was carried from her father’s house to the wedding (see b. Kesubos 17b). Some translate it simply as a face veil, not as a sedan chair. Rashi to the passage in 17b simply translates the word as a veil and so do, in later times, Tosfos Yarn Tov (Heller) and Tiferes Yisroel (Liphshutz). Therefore the veil has important legal significance. When the bride went forth veiled from her father’s house (either in the veiled sedan chair or with her face veiled) this was considered “chuppah, ” and she was by that very process “acquired” by her husband.

However, in later times, it was not deemed a full legal marriage unless she was actually in her husband’s house (or in a marriage house or tent built for the purpose). Therefore “chuppah” was interpreted to mean the husband’s premises. Later, when it still was not deemed sufficiently legal unless all the blessings were recited, the custom arose to have the special canopy which we now call a chuppah, under which the blessings were recited. Thus it was always debatable in the law, just which of these various stages should be described as “chuppah” which transfers the bride to her husband’s jurisdiction. Because there was this doubt, since the earlier definitions of chuppah did not pass out of memory, a composite custom arose with regard to the veil, to cover the doubt caused by the various definitions. So the Bach (Joel Sirkes) to Even Hoezer 61 says: “Because of these various doubts (of the meaning of the word “chuppah”) the custom has arisen that in the morning, after the morning service (i.e., hours before the ceremony which will take place in the evening) the bride’s head is covered with a veil or a cloth; and in Russia they are particularly careful to have the groom present at the veiling of the bride (be-cause of the earlier opinion that by this veiling he acquired her as wife), and then later in the day, the couple go to the chuppah (i.e., the canopy) and is formally married with the blessings.”

Ezekiel Landau in his commentary Dagul Mirvava to Yore Deah 342:1, cites this statement of the Bach. But he qualifies it as follows: “Only in Russia (Volhynia) where the groom is formally present at the veiling is this to be deemed chuppah (acquisition of the bride) but in our country (i.e., Bohemia) where the bride’s family alone veil her at home, this veiling is not to be deemed the formal chuppah.” Note, too, that the Taz (David of Ostrow) to the law in Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 342, also denies that the veiling is really the Chuppah.

It is clear from the above that at an earlier time the veiling had actual, solemn, legal significance. Therefore, even though later scholars, as the customs changed, denied that the veiling was to be deemed chuppah (any longer) it is clear that the veil is of great significance in the tradition. It may no longer be deemed a legal requirement (as Ezekiel Landau and the Taz imply) but it is certainly an ancient tradition which at one time was even of legal importance. Hirshovitz, in Ozar Minhagey Jeshurun, page 129, says that the veil must be transparent (i.e., lace) so that although the face of the bride is covered, the formal witnesses at the marriage should be able to recognize and identify her. This opinion of Hirshovitz is derived from an earlier source; see Raphael Meldola, Chuppas Chassanim, page 57, who quotes the prayerbook containing the customs of Leghorn (Tefilla Zakka) to the effect that we put a veil on the bride before the blessings because of modesty, but we raise the veil slightly before the groom formally declares, “Behold, thou art married,” etc., so that witnesses can see her. He also quotes Matte Moshe giving the custom in Toledo to the same effect.

It may be added that the present day distinction that only a bride who has never been previously married wears a veil is also ancient. The Mishnah in Kesubos 2:1 (and also 2:10) declares that the testimony that the bride when she was married went forth with the henuma (the veiled sedan or the face veil) was proof that she was being married for the first time.