NARR 338-341

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

213. Second Marriage Ceremony

QUESTION: I was recently asked to officiate at the marriage ceremony of congregants who had already been married to each other for more than twenty years. He is Jewish by birth, she converted to Judaism, but without tevilah. The idea of the second marriage emerged because the woman in question has undergone a more traditional conversion with tevilah under the auspices of a liberal Orthodox rabbi. Should there be a second wedding ceremony in accordance with the wishes of this woman? (Rabbi Daniel S. Alexander, Charlottesville VA)ANSWER: This question demands that we look at the nature of our conversion ceremony and at the implications of a repetition of the berakhot for our marriage ceremonies. Conversion within Reform Judaism has placed less emphasis on ritual and more on a course of study required of the converts. Through our courses we familiarize prospective converts with Jewish life, liturgy, history, literature, Hebrew, and the mitzvot which are incumbent upon us as Reform Jews. The course of study has changed over the generations, but not significantly as we have sought to emphasize both ideas and practice. Ultimately, of course, it is the commitment of the respective convert which is decisive. The ritual for conversion has changed through the years. As a general practice both miqveh and circumcision were not customary in the United States by the latter part of the last century. Sometime colleagues, nevertheless, continued to require both, and neither were ever officially abolished; they simply fell into disuse. At the present time judging by congregations with which I am familiar in the United States and in Canada, tevilah either in a miqveh or in an appropriate body of water is widely practiced and in many communities it has become mandatory for conversion. We would, however, not consider a conversion conducted in the past or present without tevilah or tipat dam as invalid. That is true even in communities where these rituals have been mandated. Anyone coming from another community would, bediavad, be considered as having a valid conversion. For that matter this kind of question should never be asked by any of our colleagues. Such inquiry would be dangerous not only for us, but for everyone within the Jewish community for there are always individuals who consider themselves “more pious.” Even among the Orthodox, the conversions of a whole group of traditional colleagues have been rejected by other Orthodox rabbis. Our approach would state that immersion in a miqveh has gained new meaning for us and therefore many among us have re-adopted this practice, however, we honor the mood of a former generation which understood it differently. This line of reasoning would preclude a second wedding ceremony as that would be tantamount to stating that the former conversion was invalid, something which we certainly do not wish to do. We should also remember the nature of the Jewish wedding. 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). (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 was valid. Marriage simply through intercourse with proper intent would be akin to “common law” marriage. Even if we discounted the first two of the three above it is clear that this couple intended to be married and their intention has been witnessed by the community, and so the marriage would be recognized on these grounds alone. This would present an ancillary reason for not having a second wedding ceremony, however, the primary reason remains that of not invalidating the Reform conversion which occurred some years ago. The wishes of the couple may, perhaps, be accommodated in a different fashion through a ceremony of rededication which often nowadays accompanies an important wedding anniversary. There is no Jewish tradition for such ceremonies, but neither is there anything which would prohibit our going in this direction. We should encourage this as nowadays family life is frequently in jeopardy. Whatever we can do to strengthen family ties and to bring successful marriages to the attention of our people is welcome. A simple ceremony without the original berakhot would be appropriate and would fulfill the wishes of the couple without creating the problems mentioned above.February 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.