CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
222. Video Taping a Wedding
QUESTION: A couple who are contemplating divorce have presented a video tape of their marriage which seems to show that the traditional words harei at… were not spoken by the groom. The rabbi’s words may be heard clearly but the groom seems to have said nothing. The groom now claims that therefore no marriage existed and it should be annulled and no divorce is necessary. (Sandra Berkowitz, Baltimore MD)
ANSWER: Let me begin by stating that there is considerable doubt whether the traditional words harei at… must be spoken. The codes and the earlier Talmud provide a variety of texts which may be recited (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27. 1 f and commentaries). This question also leads us to look at what constitutes a valid Jewish marriage according to tradition. 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 is valid. Marriage simple through intercourse with proper intent would be akin to “common law” marriage.
These three acts together or separately, if properly witnessed constitute, a Jewish marriage. In this instance there were many witnesses who were at the wedding, and who either saw the exchange of an object of value, or heard the traditional words, or saw the couple subsequently leave together. It should not be difficult to establish that all of this took place. In addition, of course, two witnesses signed the ketubah. That would be the first resource to be tested, but if the ketubah has been lost or willfully destroyed then the other forms of evidence would be adequate. The wedding is valid and cannot be questioned on the basis of the video-tape which may not have recorded one aspect of the ceremony.
March 1990
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.